The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep and improve. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakization[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Slovakization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was PRODded (and a hangon tag at the same time), and PROD has been contested. There's an edit war brewing as well I need to look at.

Original PROD was as follows: original research, synthesis, essay form, it is no book about slovakization in present day Slovakia

First AfD was no consensus in 2006. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion either way GedUK  19:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your book... First is about re-Slovakization - Hungarians could voluntary changed identity if they were (or their ancestors) Magyarized Slovaks (but only small part changed). It can be own article "re-Slovakization". Second is about creation of Slovak literary language, the first creation of Slovak language was based on Czech language and its Slovakized form. Its passage for ethnogenesis of literaly Slovak language. Slovakization in that article is about using Slovak language based on Czech language (used Slovak words instead of Czech words, useing of Czech grammar) as a Slovak literaly language. So i vote for delete this kind of article. Its synthesis. --Samofi (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was not "voluntary", Hungarians were forced[1][2] to change their nationality to Slovak. Check the sources please.
  1. ^ "Human Rights For Minorities In Central Europe: Ethnic Cleansing In Post World War II Czechoslovakia: The Presidential Decrees Of Edward Benes, 1945-1948"
  2. ^ Ther, Philipp; Siljak, Ana (2001). Redrawing nations: ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0742510948, 9780742510944.
And first book is from Hungarian author and written in 1949 so neutrality is disputed. --Samofi (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which book?--B@xter9 12:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Books of Slatersteven--Samofi (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then take it to the RSN board. Moreover one is not by Hungarians, its an American paper. I agree that they are not fantastic sources, its why I say that notability still needs to be establsihed. My point was to susgest that this AFD needs to be looked at with great care as the term certaionly exsist,, so a page on it might be notable. But that the actual materail on the page would need to e checked to insure that it is verfifiable in third party RS.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete(double vote) Its Baxter´s manipulation. All his sources are about Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange. Slovak/Magyar/German-izations are based on forced national or ethnical change of human beings. Baxter you have article about Slovak-Hungarian relations where is 90% of Hungarian or from prohungarian Slovak sources (SME). All these books you can use there or in Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange. Stop with antislovakian propaganda. Assimilation is not Slovakization. Look to minorities in Hungary what is ethnocide. Magyars dont make children, they are 30 years in minuse with population. 15% of Magyars in Slovakia are Roma people and 10 % of Magyars in Hungary are Roma people. Its natural assimilation --Samofi (talk) 13:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Its Baxter´s manipulation. All his sources are about Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange. where is 90% of Hungarian or from prohungarian Slovak sources" That is lie. You again see what you want, not the truth: 90% of them is Englis written by experts of the issue. All of my sources are about Slovak-Hungarian population exchanges because ethnic Slovaks (i.e. and not Czech, this is the used English form) were changed for ethnic Hungarians (of course the country was called Czechoslovakia).--B@xter9 16:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For antislovak Baxter. I have read english articles. This one is Hungarian in english: http://hungarian-history.hu/lib/jani/jani13.htm Here is only about re-Slovakization. Officialy it was voluntary, based on ethnic origin. Other thing it was that Magyars of ethnic Slovak origin had fear from lose of their civic securities so they re-Slovakized. This article will deleted and you can write it to re-Slovakization --Samofi (talk) 13:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop your personal attacks. Thank you. It was not me who was warned for pushing anti-Hungarian propaganda ("Please don't change articles to insert your own pro-Slovak/anti-Hungarian point of view. Thankyou, HawkerTyphoon 10:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)"). The whole article is based on neutral third party English sources, and I added a few Slovak ones. If you read English sources than why aren't you adding them? Officialy it was not voluntary, as it is proved by the English sources.--B@xter9 16:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its old, I was young and after that almost dont use wikipedia about 4 years. --Samofi (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The article is purely synthesis of indirectly related materials" This is a lie. Every sentence of this article is referenced by direct English sources. "It is also used in linguistic context, therefore google search count is insufficient to determine the real frequency of its use" Please tell me Wladthemlat, which books talks abot "Slovakization" as a Linguistic context/phenomena: J. Rieber, Alfred (2000). Forced Migration in Central and Eastern Europe, 1939-1950. Routledge. ISBN 9780714651323? or Mandelbaum, Michael (2000). The New European Diasporas: National Minorities and Conflict in Eastern Europe. Council on Foreign Relations. ISBN 9780876092576? Minority rights in Central and Eastern Europe. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0203883659, 9780203883655? Šutaj, Štefan (2005) (in Slovak). Nútené presídlenie Maďarov zo Slovenska do Čiech [Deportation of population of Hungarian nationality out of Slovakia to the Czechland after the World War II]. Prešov: Universum. ISBN 80-89046-29-0? Ther, Philipp; Siljak, Ana (2001). Redrawing nations: ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0742510948, 9780742510944? Yeshayahu A., Jelinek (1983). The Lust for Power: Nationalism, Slovakia, and the Communists, 1918-1948. East European Monographs. ISBN 0880330198, 9780880330190?
Comment It's not a lie, that every single sentence is referenced does not contradict the synthesis claim. The article references sources to support factual claims, however the sources do not operate within the context of the article. In other words - the article is a re-intepretation of the sources, ergo WP:OR.
I was just drawing attention to the fact, that slovakization is used also in linguistic context so to operate with simple source counts would be inaccurate.
and to the books you listed
  • Forced Migration in Central and Eastern Europe - the term is used only once and in the context of *voluntary* change of *citizenship*, not in the one of organized govermental policy of ethnic oppresion as the article claims in the lead.[4]
  • The New European Diasporas - cultural slovakization in unspecified context, one sentence is too little for a whole article.[5]
  • Redrawing nations: ethnic cleansing in East-Central Europe, 1944-1948 - deals only with a limited time period, uses the term in quotation marks and it referes EXCLUSIVELY to the change of citizenship after WWII. So this is not too established (quotation marks) and the rest of the article is unsubstantiated. If you want to keep the article, rename it to Re-Slovakization and make it deal only with the post WWII period, otherwise you are introducing synthesisi and WP:OR, simple as that. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term Slovakization exists, check the sources. Tt seems that few editors don't know the truth abouth "re-slovakization": "In 1946, another method -the process of "Reslovakization", (or re-Slovakization) the forced acceptance of Slovak nationality[40][52]- was engaged by the Czechoslovak government with the objective of eliminating the Hungarian nationality.[40]" Or the historian authors of these books do not know the difference? LOL!
http://nargeo.geo.uni.lodz.pl/~zgpol/sob/slovak_minority.pdf
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=-zZ_NVM9mNEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA9&dq=Slovakization&ots=pdcwS-YO-y&sig=nF0DjMTXZ9z82Wsz1sw0g3g0XJM#v=onepage&q=Slovakization&f=false
http://ehlee.humnet.unipi.it/books3/5/08_SZEGHYOVA.pdf
Three should do for now. Again not that these merely establish that the term is used, not its context
1th and 3th source is about slovakization in historical therm - synonym for assimilation, or adaptation of slovak culture. 2nd source is about re-Slovakization. I dont understand why all people here connect re-Slovakization, Slovakization and Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange. Its 3 different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samofi (talk • contribs) 14:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the term exsits, that it has historical usage not coverd in the article just means the articel needs work, not deletion (and I agree that that is the case). As to the second source. the term Slovakisation (not re-slokaisation) occurs of pages 49, 52, 54, 55, 61 (which talks about enforced Slovakisation before WW1), 62, 66 (which talks about detention campsand disapearances up to about 1950) so it does use the phrase, repeatedly, and about forced Slovkaisation before and after WW1 (and indead WW2). Anotehr source http://www.litopys.org.ua/rizne/magocie.htm Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Term exist also existed problem of slovak nationality in hungarian kingdom if slovak from hungarian kingdom in 1915 called himself Slavic Hungarian: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=1&res=9D0DE4DD153BE233A25752C1A9629C946496D6CF But look to article, what from this article should stay there? Look to article Czechoslovak-hungarian population exchange. the present time is same like slovak-hungarian relation (there is 90% of sources hungarian). I tried to rebuilt this article, but Hobartimus put it always back. He is retarted, its impossible to make compromisses with him. --Samofi (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Than let me quote from the book (number 2) advocated by Samofi:"With this population transfer ...Hungarian were forced to leave Slovakia for Hungary...."of their own will"....73,273 people from Hungary declairing themselves to be Slovak...although usually without any such identity and hardly speaking the language, but simmply eager to expropriate property that had fromerly belonged to Hungarians were resettled in South Slovakia...The ethnic composition and statics of the population of South Slovakia were heavily influenced not only by the migrations already mentioned, but by another form of ethnic expansion, so -called "re-Slovakization". More than half of the Hungarians frightened and deprived of their rights...applied to call themselves Slovaks. This meant being granted citizenship and staying in their homeland.... (p 68)As the shocking events of the 1940's faded, an increasing number of formerly scared and "re-Slovakized" Hungarian reassumed their Hungarian ethnicity in the census stativs. (Page 69)...the loss through re-Slovakization together with the Hungarians who suddenly "turned into Slovaks"....The organizers of ethnic cleansing managed to target towns located along the ethnic boundary with a Hungarian majority. If you read the article you will find out that the Slovak government's goal was to Slovakize Slovakia (especially after WWII). After the removal of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia to Hungary failed, they decided that they will Slovakize the country via deportation: (the Slovak government planned -and started- the relocation of the Hungarians to the Czech borderlands. After this attempt failed, they forced the Hungarians to declare themselves Slovaks (this was the "re-slovakization"), so they receieved Czechslovak citizenship. The Slovak government used the term re-slovakization/reslovakization, because they invented the idea that the Hungarians in Slovakia were originaly Slovaks, who assimilated into Hungarian culture centuries ago and -according to them- "they forgot their true Slovak heritage/culture" --B@xter9 16:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about the page you created that got deleted, but thank you for making it clear to me that this is what this is all about, I would ask that this is now closed as well as its just a tit for tat nom. Secondly the NYT source does not include the words problem, Slovak, nationality, hungarian or kingdom so does not support the existance of this phrase anyway. By the way have you seen Magyarization which discuses the opposite to this page?Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the reason for this nomination, I think we should look at the facts. The term is not used, all the sources reference "re-slovakization", which is not just a cosmetic difference. Moreover, this term is used *exclusively* for the period immediately after WWII, it is not at all established for the historical scope the article deals with. Furthemore, the article describes slovakization as an official governmental policy, which none of the sources support. The whole article just interconnects otherwise disparate pieces of data, which is a blatant example of WP:OR. Wladthemlat (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take it then you have not seen page 62 of 'Ethnic Geography of the Hungarian Minorities in the Carpathian Basin'?Slatersteven (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That deals with a process of natural assimilation (an official policy would be impossible in 18th century which it referes to), so it only reinforces my claims. The term is used sparsely and when it is, it is so in a context completely different from what the article tries to establish. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Odd the copy I am looking at is discusing the period between 1910 and 1930 [[6]]or try page 61Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have to admit that it references Slovakization in the early 20th century, on the same page however it uses the same term on natural assimilation ("[...] Slovakization which accelerated during the 18th and 19th centuries [...]"). Fine, so we have found one book that uses a controversial term in a questionable context. Does it merit keeping the article and if so, what is WP:FRINGE then? What i sm more, the only book we were able to find is by Hungarians, no neutral sources use it. Doesn't change much I say. Wladthemlat (talk) 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uses of the term Slovakisation in relation to ethnicity or education in the 20thC
All different all equal By Council of Europe, page 147
Eastern Europe in the twentieth century By R. J. Crampton, page 73 (referring only to Bratislava university though).
Europe and ethnicity: the First World War and contemporary ethnic conflict By Seamus Dunn, T. G. Fraser, page 105
And one covering the 1990's
Pushing back the boundaries: the European Union and Central and Eastern Europe By Mike Mannin, page 265

Will that do or do you want more?Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • One hypothetical reference, irrelevant.
  • Again, hypothetical reference, it refers to demands by a group, partially irrelevant. Definitely a vastly different context.
  • Another hypothetical (fears of a hypothetical programme).
  • Finally, a first book that actually operates with the term as needed.Wladthemlat (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coz this kinds of articles (Slovakization and espetialy Slovak-Hungarian relations) are used for antislovakian propaganda. Look how many hungarian sources are there, are they neutral? Why can magyars use magyar sources and sovak sources are POV and not neutral and fascist in their opinion? See activities of Hobartimus, Baxter9. Hungarians try to make one big propaganda in wikipedia. Delete this compilation, and in Slovak-Hungarian relations hold only informations from english newspapers. --Samofi (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped counting English sources at 10... Isn't it strange that exclusively Slovak editors deny the existence of this topic?
I repeat: could we close this caricature of a nomination? Squash Racket (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NO mostly hungarians want keep this topic and Iam sure that Slatersteven is not sure that conception of this article and its content coresponds with the name of article. I vote for: delete all about slovak-hungarian exchange its in own article (it was not directly from slovak elites and transfer of germans from czechia is not considered as czechization). delete about slovakia after 1993 it belongs to Slovak-Hungarian relations (lot of things same) - no book about slovakization of hungarians after 1993. In the article can be: 1. Slovakized Czech language - concept for literary slovak language , 2 Slovakization of names of towns in Slovakia 3 re-Slovakization of Hungarians. Who agree with me? --Samofi (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly do not make assumptions on my behalf, especialy when you seem to be implying i do not know what I am talkinig about. As I see it this artciel is about the slovakisation of non-ethnic slovaks living within the Czecoslovak state (and after in the Slovak state), as such the name is appropriate (and is used in this context by multiple sources). As to deleting portions of the articel, this is not the place for this discusion, take it to the articels talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Samofi:NO ONLY Slovaks voted for deletion and at least two non-Hungarians voted to keep it. Squash Racket (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why keep? find me definition of Slovakization, in 1 book. Clear definition of Slovakization. --Samofi (talk) 17:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article protected due to edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it´s just me but what´s your point? --EllsworthSK (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some people were contesting notability. If it gets 2 pages in a news magazine on another continent, I'd say that's a really strong indication of notability. David V Houston (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More