Jump to content

Talk:List of Slovaks

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Detailed edit summary

[edit]

Hello everybody. I have made a detailed edit summary of my edit. Please, if you have intention of removing anything from changes I have done, can you leave a remark about it here with some explanation? From my knowledge, all returned people are conforming to inclusion criteria. I was trying to be as objective as possible. Please, show some constructive input and show me, where I am wrong.

  • re-added the qualification criterion "were born in the territory of present-day Slovakia and/or who have lived there for most of their lives" returned - included as it was already discussed before and decided to stay
  • I have removed people with no evidence here in Wikipedia or not generally known as qualified according to inclusion rules
  • I have included people qualified according to inclusion rules
  • small changes

Namely:

--Ruziklan (talk) 12:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the list rules AND editing the list according to the NEW rules just changed in the same edit is a bad idea. Also for most of your changes you list no reason just 'returned' or 'removed' it's just clutters the talk page to list them this way. Also I propose that the list be cleansed from "red links". Red linked people who have no article offer no benefit to the reader while they take space from articles that can be linked to. If they are important enough for an article they can be added later. But since this would be a major change I'm proposing it here on the talk page BEFORE actually doing it. Hobartimus (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list has been serving to editors writing new articles on people from Slovakia since its creation. The reason why there are so many red links is that editors fill them by new articles. Red links are important here and have not bothered anyone for years. Tankred (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why this "serving to editors"(?) should be in mainspace. Let us keep mainspace for our readers editors already have large amounts of non-mainspace available to them for things like this. Hobartimus (talk) 09:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

page move discussion

[edit]

My apologies for my hasty renaming of this page earlier today. I've been rather inactive on Wikipedia for some time now and I'm apparently forgetting some protocols and procedures. In any event, we might as well discuss it now--does anyone have any particular objections to the new name "List of Slovakians"? (I ask only for serious objections, and no objections based on either my ethnic ancestry or that of anyone else who comments here.) K. Lásztocskatalk 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IF the move is agreed on, what will be the fate of my "huge edit" I have made in good faith and frowned upon by some other editors? I repeat I have no intention to work on this anymore, I just would like to see my work not lost. I have come through all changes made since some time and considered it to my best knowledge of history, even edited some short descriptions (Tuka and more), they were just reverted. Please, consider, and if there is good will on both sides, list can be surely improved much further. --Ruziklan (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose the move, Slovaks and Slovakians are totally interchangeable and 'Slovak' is by far the prevalent term. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to second Hexagon, while the terms are both used and I personally think that Slovakians sounds a bit better, Slovaks are used much more, both in writing and in speech. So, I think list of Slovaks is a better name but I'd be fine with the other name and a redirect from "List of Slovakians", it doesn't matter much as long as the reader gets where he wants to get. The Dominator (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it back. Oddly it seems you didn't even bother fixing double redirects after your move. I understand where you're coming from but Slovak is really the prevailing term as far as I can tell. Slovakians is a recent back-demonym from Slovakia, but Slovaks is much much older. +Hexagon1 (t) 00:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute centralized

[edit]

Elonka has created a subpage in her userspace, trying to centralize discussions involving Hungarian and Slovakian editors. It is an experiment, as it is neither a mediation nor a Request for Comment, nor is it a random chat. She will be moderating the discussion as an administrator, and enforcing rules of civility to minimize disruption. This is an experiment, as part of her participation in the ArbCom-appointed Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars and has asked me to give a linke here as I have brought this list to her knowledge. Please, follow the discussion at: User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Thanks, --Ruziklan (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion criteria

[edit]

(posts from April 17-18, 2008 were copied from User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment)

There is a major disagreement about content of this list. The core of dispute is in my view rooted in the definitions of the inclusion criteria. One side prefers the following three-condition-start

This is a list, in alphabetical order within categories, of notable people who either:
  • are or were citizens of Slovakia or Czechoslovakia,
  • are or were of Slovak identity or ancestry,
  • were born in the territory of present-day Slovakia and/or who have lived there for most of their lives.

while the other side prefers the followinf two-conditions-start

This is a list of notable people who either:

There are some other points within article repeatedly reverted, including in my view virtually non-disputed points, but the inclusion criteria should be made clear first. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ruziklan.  :) Can you provide some links to where this has been discussed at the talkpage? Or is this another one where the disagreement is mainly going on via edit-warring? Also, could you please post a note at the talkpage there, linking people to this discussion? Thanks, Elonka 13:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was extensively discussed at the talk page see in this thread This is only distantly related though one connection is that it was brought up on talk of WP:Slovakia in a thread presumably to get more users involved in the specific content dispute. I think we really need a ruling of some sorts if it's acceptable to gather support for edit wars or disputes this way? Hobartimus (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was disussed extensively, but not fully. Other argument is brought by me in the thread False information?!. By way of example, so far nobody here denies that Johann Andreas Segner was not Slovak by his nationality (although some sources in Slovakia make Slovaks by nationality almost from everyone, :-)), but Segner's ties to Slovakia and his being understood as Slovak scientist in general sense (as well as German and Hungarian and whatever) make him in my view eligible for being included in the list of people that have something to do with Slovakia. Two criteria are not enough. The third in the present form seems to be disputed because it is not in line with page title. So let's discuss the third criterion.
And surely this page is not related only distantly as firstly edit warring involved more or less the same users as other pages mentioned here and secondly many disputed people on List of Slovaks are of Hungarian nationality. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reply to Hobartimus, edit conflict) It really depends, such as on how many posts are being sent, and who they're being sent to, and how they're worded. See WP:CANVASS. It's definitely fine, and even encouraged, to request comments from related WikiProjects. If you want to get more uninvolved editors into the discussion, I recommend filing an RfC (request for comment). The way through this is to keep talking, and see if you can find a compromise solution. It might also be useful to look at how other contentious areas have solved this problem. For example, read the lead paragraphs at List of Russians and List of Poles (or other ethnicities), and see if there is something there that you might be able to adapt towards finding your own consensus. --Elonka 13:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All this has already been discussed at Talk:List_of_Slovaks#R.C3.A1k.C3.B3czi_and_Kossuth.3F and Talk:List_of_Slovaks#page_name. Please read those threads if you are interested in this case. Tankred (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In this particular case I think the trouble is with the audience being partisan instead of non-partisan considering all of the above mess and the involvement of WP:Slovakia members. And maybe also the neutrality of the message. I guess my question is if a Hungarian user wants to use WikiProject Hungary to call attention to specific content disputes, in a similar fashion what can be told to him/her? Do it don't do it, do it until the message is neutral etc? As to the specific List of Slovaks the topic had extensive discussion even before Ruziklan's involvement starting two weeks ago with comments from a larger group of users spreading accross several threads there so this is definitely one area where we had plenty of discussion and I think consensus -regarding at least the issue of the inclusion criteria- can be determined after full reading of that talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that consensus, as you see it, is...? My impression was that in the thread mentioned by you (Inclusion_Criteria) the discussion was lead mainly by users from the group opposing any third criterium, namely István, K. Lásztocska, Koppany, Hobartimus and Rembaoud, the exceptions being Tankred and KaracharNevian with one comment each, so no wonder if the result of this particular thread discussion would be in "no third criterium". My comments were made later, not in that thread, that is true.
Generally speaking, I think following the example of List of Russians given above by Elonka seems to be quite meaningful way forward in my view. --Ruziklan (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please just give me a few examples that you think should be included in a "list of Slovaks" but could not be included without the 3rd criterion? If there are really such important persons that could rightly be placed on a "list of Slovaks" but they don't fit the first two, they could be included on a case by case basis perhaps? Hobartimus (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion on case-by case basis is probably not a good idea. One could claim that all included people not fitting the two criteria were included on a case-by-case basis - "I would include them" or "I would not include them" anytime in edit summary. Do you think this could work with previous history of edit warring?
Examples are abundant. I have already named Johann Andreas Segner and many of people included in my Talk:List of Slovaks#Detailed_edit_summary are good examples as well. Also, you can check the Slovak page [1] with subtitle "najvýznamnejšie osobnosti Slovenska" that can be translated "the most important personalities of Slovakia". The page includes many people considered as important personalities in the Slovak history in spite of not being of Slovak identity nor citizenship. Of course, these people are repeatedly named as such in Slovek printed sources, I am giving the page osobnosti.sk only for quick reference. This everything is just giving good reason to follow the List of Russians style. --Ruziklan (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear dividing line between Slovak and Hungarian participants of the discussion at Talk:List of Slovaks. I do not see any reason why you should call the members of WikiProject:Slovakia (a project having this article in its scope) partisans, while you do not say a word about the Hungarian discussants. They are impartial? People who have never contributed to List of Slovaks miraculously found that discussion? They did not came from the Hungarian regional noticeboard, right? [2] The Hungarian regional noticeboard is used regularly to coordinate action of Hungarian editors on articles related to Slovakia, Romania, and Serbia, see these threads: [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Except for two very recent threads at its talk page, the WikiProject:Slovakia has been used to coordinate improvement of articles from stubs to full articles, from A articles to GAs, and from GAs to FAs. That is the purpose of this project ansd I protest against the attempt to discredit our fellow editors because they participate in a wikiproject. Tankred (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tankred, I notified Czech editors at their noticeboard, also the Germans at their noticeboard. I didn't send a message to Slovaks, because they didn't have their own noticeboard. In fact, my next edit was helping create it. Thanks for the honest presentation of what happened.
BTW all the threads you mentioned at the Hungarian board are rather old, so I can't tell if you presented those the same way or not. Squash Racket (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reply to Tankred) I can't help but notice that all of these diffs you link are at least half a year old, if not more while we discuss edits above that were made this month. Hobartimus (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoolKoon has just inserted Gábor Demszky into List of Slovaks (see diff diff) in spite of

  • discussion over the list inclusion criteria just now running here,
  • no evidence on page on Gábor Demszky that he has any tie to Slovakia.

Also despite following current politics I have no idea how he is tied to Slovakia. The provided reference [14] should probably document his tie to Slovakia, but is in Hungarian language therefore I ask him to give brief summary here. Posting to his talk page. --Ruziklan (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the reference in Hungarian, but I couldn't find any in English. However the article is about Demszky's visit to Kosice to meet with Kosice's mayor. Part of the article is also a fact that Demszky's 80-year father is still fluent in Slovak, and he has spent many summer holidays during his childhood at his grandparents who lived in Kosice, and that's why he thinks it's important to reunite the families and ties cut by the borders (of Trianon), especially in today's globalising Europe. The proof of his commitment is the fact that he's writing a book about his grandparents, his grand-grandparents and the era they lived in.
So I hope this explains his ties to Slovakia (or at least to Kosice). CoolKoon (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Shortly said, it means his ancestors are Slovak.
This example thus gives good example of important point in the list construction. In Slovakia Johann Andreas Segner (included in the currently discussed list a few times according to the disputed third criterion) is surely considered more Slovak than Gábor Demszky despite the fact that latter is Slovak according to the second (undisputed) criterion. --Ruziklan (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Surely Johann Andreas Segner cannot be considered Slovak by any stretch of the imagination. We could just copy the debate here but you brought this source which states that Segner was born 9 Oct 1704 in Pozsony, Hungary. If you should argue for anything you should argue based on your source that you brought to the discussion, that he should be placed on a List of Hungarians, but as far as I've seen there is no desire to put him there or to mass populate that list with non-Hungarian people. But this was already discussed ad infinitum and consensus on the talk page was quite clear. And I don't really get how rehashing everything here is better than on the talk page, where actually a lot more people already commented and there were long and exhaustive discussions on the topic. Hobartimus (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is important difference between Johann Andreas Segner is considered Slovak and Johann Andreas Segner is considered more Slovak than Gábor Demszky. I have stated the latter, not the former. Believe it or not, some people consider Segner Slovak, he is for example sometimes referred to as Slovak scientist of the past. I do not share this opinion. The undeniable fact is, however, that he has strong ties to Bratislava.
Furthermore, I do not think there was reached consensus on the talk page, in my view the discussion went astray when mostly people opposing wider list discussed and agreed with themselves - as I have already stated above. Discussion has led nowhere and was turning into constant edit war. That is why somebody from outside had to step in and I am glad Elonka did that. She even provided useful links for possible way forward. Have you any objections against the way used in the List of Russians? --Ruziklan (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should read your own source, he had strong ties to Pozsony, the city was renamed Bratislava more than two hundred years after his birth. I don't think anyone knowledgeable about this person would refer to him as a Slovak scientist just like no-one would refer to medieval Serb leaders as Kosovar or Albanian. Discussion did lead somewhere it lead to consensus about the criteria of the list, there is no point in denial. Anyone can just check the talk page and determine for themselves if they see consensus or not about the inclusion criteria. Consensus does not mean that everyone has to agree. Hobartimus (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bratislava = Pozsony, it is the same town. Name has changed, but the town is the same. Many people on the list are referred to as Slovaks in wide sense of word, precisely due to reasons similar to those in the preamble of List of Russians. I have given my arguments and now I give up. The discussion is stalled precisely as before. Somebody else? --Ruziklan (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The name has changed. Also the people in the town have changed. Unless the percentage of Slovaks is still 14% today the people have changed significantly. I don't see any reason why previous solid consensus should be subverted. And you still did not react if you would classify all Serbs Turks etc in the previous centuries as Albanians or Kosovars? Hobartimus (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people has changed, also new buildings were built - but there is something called historic continuity... Regarding you repeated question I can just say I do not know whether I would classify them that, I do not know the situation. However I know the situation in Slovakia. You have not answered my question about List of Russians. What is wrong with applying the similar approach here? I find its preamble very reasonable. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely replacing the population of a city by displacing the previous residents through various means can hardly be compared to building new buildings. You gave no reason why all the previous editors who commented on this should be completely ignored? Wikipedia works by building consensus and I don't think that by moving this dispute here you have the right to ignore all previous opinions including ones given just a few short days ago for example [15]. Hobartimus (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite opposite, I have already given a number of reasons and I have also adressed the issue of apparent consensus above (that including diff provided by you) - it was not discussion reflecting all possible arguments and involved mostly people sharing your point of view. I can thus understand why you stand by the result, but let's let somebody else give us other view. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other views were already given at the talk page. You think just because you started discussing this here the debate simply restarted and defaulted to zero? You can't just ignore people by moving the discussion around, that's not how Wikipedia works. Hobartimus (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for teaching me how Wikipedia does not work. To be sure, I have duly read the talk page in question, I have considered ideas given there ... and I stand by my arguments, they are no less valid. No consensus (including apparent consensus) is set in stone and as we two are unable to move forward - both of us standing at our positions - I am sure other users will be able to share their views and move the discussion forward. --Ruziklan (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I took a look at the December 2007 discussion, and the current discussions. However, I have to point something out here: Talkpage discussion cannot trump Wikipedia policy. As it stands, List of Slovaks is in gross breach of the first pillar of Wikipedia policy. We are not here to provide original research. All information here must be linked to reliable sources. The threshold for what can be included is Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To be specific: No name should go onto the list, unless there is a reliable source which describes that individual as a Slovak. So instead of disagreeing about the exact definition, I recommend some rapid progress in providing sources for the names that are there. Any names for which there are no sources, should be removed. --Elonka 06:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is of course completely reasonable and going even to the deeper roots, thank you.
The question is now, how we should proceed practically. Should we delete the content of list except people with already sourced identity (e.g. on their own pages), should we allow some time to source identity people already on the list and delete reamining people? Finally, how that can be done most effciently if multiple people are expected to contribute in terms of collaboration? What would you recommend?
Another difficult issue was already mentioned by me a few times above. Let's imagine that I manage to find the Slovak source (I mean reliable source according to reliable sources) claiming that person XY is Slovak scientist. His article in Wikipedia however says and even other independent sources however claim, that he was of some other identity(ies). Should XY be included in the list? I would say yes, with proper noting of these points. --Ruziklan (talk) 07:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, taking your questions one at a time: Per WP:V, anyone can remove unsourced information on sight. However, simply going in and blanking the page could potentially be seen as a violation of WP:POINT. A gentler way to do this would be to add {{cn}} (citation-needed) tags next to anything you're not sure about. I spot-checked some other "List of (nationality)" lists, and to be honest, most of them are very poor in terms of sourcing. But consensus is pretty clear that just because one article might be poorly-written, doesn't give the excuse for other similar articles to be of poor quality. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.  :)
For now, I've placed an overall tag about sourcing at the top of the page, and, speaking for myself, I am willing to give some time for sources to be found. Then again, if someone does remove all unsourced information, I would have a hard time seeing that as block-worthy disruptive, since they'd have WP:V backing them up. I was chatting off-wiki with another admin about this earlier today, and his reaction was, "Clear out the list. Insist that any person added must have a source referring to them as a Slovak. The end. Block anyone who adds without sourcing."
So, believe it or not, I'm actually going softer on you guys than another admin might.  ;) We're all volunteers here, so it's a bit "luck of the draw". I hope you guys think I'm doing a good job, but I'm prepared in case anyone decides to hate me for my crackdown here.  ;) The way it usually works on unsourced info though, is that on a non-controversial article, if someone adds info without a source, it'll probably get a "source needed" added to it. BUT, if someone removes the information, then it had better stay gone unless someone re-adds it with a source. If someone tries to edit-war to re-add the information without a source, they're clearly on the losing side of the policy at that point.
As for your second question, if you have a reliable source saying that someone is a Slovak scientist, then I would have no objection to their name going on the list. If the individual is also claimed by other ethnicities, and there are reliable sources which state it, his name should go on those lists too. It might be worth adding a special footnote such as "this individual is claimed by multiple ethnicities", but that's up to the editors to figure out. The only case that might be made for not including him on the Slovak list, might be one of undue weight. Or in other words, if 100 reliable sources say that a scientist is (for example) Italian, and only 1 says that he is Slovak, and the information on Wikipedia is challenged, it might be worth discussing him on the talkpage to determine if too much weight is being given to his Slovak heritage, and/or if the 1 source might be a fringe source, or even if it might be a typo (mistakes happen!). But that's multiple "if's", so it would take some doing to get into that grey area. Or in other words, I'd only worry about it if it comes up. --Elonka 08:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do think you do the excellent job here, thank you for the answers. For me the situation with the List of Slovaks is pretty clear now. --Ruziklan (talk) 09:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sculptor of Slovak origin

[edit]

I would like to include my name as a sculptor of Slovak (father), Moravian (mother) origin, born jun 5. 1943 in Slovakia. Of course I can not do it for obvious reason (self promotion). Anybody interested in my inclusion? Am I good enough for you? Rasto Hlavina 7,12, 201174.210.37.164 (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up templates

[edit]

I'm removing the many clean-up templates because they seem to be out of date and often duplicate one another. Are they there for some political statement? The remaining entries are bluelinked and if anyone disputes the nationality/ethnicity they can remove them or seek verification. Sionk (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Slovaks&oldid=1271428848"