Wiki Article
Talk:Slovakization
Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Slovakization article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-08-19. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
| This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Slovakization of Germans
[edit]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)
"Wise historism" section
[edit]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)
Proposal to edit/remove irrelevant sections
[edit]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) Dorian Grejp
Reference article 53 is absurdly biased
[edit]Reference article 53 https://web.archive.org/web/20090423112729/http://migrationeducation.de/15.1.html?&rid=14&cHash=944ca081bb has several sections that makes its validity dubious.
Few examples:
The Slovaks, willing partners in the 1938 collapse of the Czechoslovak Republic and solely responsible for the disappearance of the second Czechoslovak Republic in 1992,
76,616 Hungarians were forcibly taken to Hungary in boxcars; these Hungarians were generally well-to-do businessmen, tradesmen, farmers and intellectuals. At the same time, 60,257, mostly poverty-stricken Slovaks volunteered to move to Czechoslovakia.
Benes proceeded to erode, and then destroy, the previous harmonious coexistence of the Czech, German, Slovak and Hungarian people.
The diabolic Benes plan for the expulsion of the German and Hungarian population from their homes on former Czechoslovak territory
Slovakia miraculously emerged as an accidental beneficiary of World War II
The restoration of Czechoslovakia after World War II was a political mistake of colossal proportion.
Time has come for the peaceful revision of the Slovak-Hungarian border along centuries-old ethnic lines
As you can see, article uses clearly unprofessional words as "diabolic" or "colossal", issues multiple claims as "solely responsible for the disappearance" with no concrete or even weak proofs and it states explicitly wrong statements as "harmonious coexistence of the Czech, German, Slovak and Hungarian people".
There are many other examples I omitted for sake of time, but article in whole paints Czechoslovakia and its successor states in strongly negative light, misinterpenetrating and bending historical facts. In contrast, it paints Hungary as victim who was forced to join WW2.
As such, I think this reference should be removed. Darth Kirtap (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
Bias, misinterpretations and historical inaccuracies
[edit]I will try to make a balanced take here.
This article has a lot of issues regarding historical accuracy and interpretation, there seems to be a lot of claims that originate from Hungarian nationalist theories that are not factually reliable nor are supported by broad academic consensus, which violates Wikipedia´s WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and WP:V (Verifiability).
"...which laid foundations to the creation of Czechoslovakia, a state in which the Slovaks had gained a de facto political power for the first time in the nation's history." This claim is an oversimplification that borders on historical inaccuracy and ignores significant historic precedents, while if we interpret a nation as the same construct as the one that emerged during the Enlightment period, then that is true for pretty much every other nation because the concept of a nation-state has existed only since then, though, even with that, the claim is untrue, because during the revolutions of 1848, there was a short-lived autonomous region that lasted for about 14 months (09.1848 to 11.1849), which was ruled and administrated by Slovaks and had its own government (Slovak National Council en/sk), executive power, military, and currency. But since the article claims "de facto" then that applies to the nation as its people, which makes the claim false, because the direct ancestors of modern-day Slovaks have ruled over Principality of Nitra (792-1108/1112) and partially Great Moravia (833-907).
"In 1946 the process of "Reslovakization" (or re-Slovakization), the forced acceptance of Slovak ethnicity, was engaged by the Czechoslovak government with the objective of eliminating the Hungarian ethnicity." Misinterpretation. The Reslovakization program was officially framed as an "ethnic correction." Its stated objective was to allow people who had been Magyarized under the Kingdom of Hungary to return to their Slovak roots. While historians debate the level of pressure involved, the stated goal was the reclamation of a perceived lost Slovak population, not the elimination of the Hungarian ethnicity as a whole. Connecting expulsions and exchange with it is also misleading, as that is an entirely different program, which was the Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange (I could source the English Wikipedia article, but that one is also historically inaccurate (wiki-en/sk) The accuracy of the Slovak one has not been checked by me yet, but it is quoting Štefan Šutaj, who is a leading expert on this topic (1, 2) and Jaroslav Vaculík, who is an internationally credible academic source (1)
"Robert Fico's governance often violates minority rights and is openly hungarophobic for its disrespect of the Hungarian minority..." This is an inaccurate or outdated assessment. The Slovak Republic respects minority rights, as the Hungarian minority has their own schools (346 nursery schools, 242 elementary schools and 59 secondary schools (source)), city signs in their (over 500) municipalities, and Hungarian can be spoken freely. The main cotroversy may have come from the 2009 language law, however, the implications were exaggerated, the law essentially states that the Slovak language must not be misused by legal entities, all public signs must primarily feature Slovak, official communication was to be done in Slovak only (exception is if your municipality had a minority of 20+%, but it got lowered to 15+% in the 2011 ammendments), and official documentation and records (whether school or medical) had to be written in Slovak (the law does not limit its personal use within the profession), the law was even reviewed by OSCE, and they issued a report in which they deem the law to be acceptable. Regarding Robert Fico, he is not hungarophobic, actually, he and Viktor Orban became close diplomatic and strategic partners in the recent years due to shared geopolitical goals, like their joint national sovereignty efforts. In 1998, Robert Fico was not the leader of his party yet, SMER didn´t even exist back then, he was a member of SDĽ, the implied reason of "lobbied for the Party of Hungarian Coalition to not be let into the Slovakian parliament" in the context to hungarophobia is extremely oversimplified. The reason why he did not want SMK to enter the ruling government coaltion is because of his concerns of their regional nationalist nature (like re-opening of the Beneš Decrees) and argued for a more expert-driven coalition, especially in relations to the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros controversy (wiki)... and not necessarily that "they shouldn´t be let into the Slovakian parlament", plus, using the term "lobbying" is inaccurate.
There are many other inaccuracies in the text that have been pointed out by other editors. I propose that this article should be either heavily edited for neutrality or entirely remade to meet Wikipedia´s standards of academic rigor and balance.