Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hungarian sentiment (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 DELETE. This seems to be a touchy topic, so let me make something clear: I am not asserting that "anti-Hungarian sentiment" is a false or non-notable phenomenon. What I am doing is deleting this article because it is a synthesis of published material that would require a substantial amount of work to fix and thus is, judging from its edit history and current external references, unlikely to be sufficiently cleaned up in the near future. As noted by one of the participants, it is not sufficient to create a collection of disparate references that each tackle one specific incident or one particular facet of the topic (e.g., how Hungarians are treated in Slovakia), although well-sourced articles on these subtopics are welcome. An article of this nature must be backed up by substantial third-party literature that addresses the discrimination as a whole. Anyone is welcome to attempt to create a new article with these guidelines in mind; I can provide the deleted text of the article and talk page if desired, as long as it is not used to recreate the article in its present form. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 06:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REVISION: At the request of an editor, this discussion is to be considered closed with a decision of redirect to Hungarians in Slovakia. This is to preserve the page history. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 16:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hungarian sentiment[edit]

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

This article currently looks like a coatrack being used to expose politicians' anti-Hungarian statements, which seems quite inappropriate. There are three sections, the first is just a dicdef, the second is covered in far better detail in Hungarians in Slovakia and the third is basically a non-notable local news bite.

In the absence of a single reliable source whose focal topic is "Anti-Hungarian sentiment", I propose this article be deleted as a synthesis of various non-notable titbits, serving little purpose except as a troublesome POV fork. This stuff all belongs in other articles. - filelakeshoe 00:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 01:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The circumstances in which the proposal is taking place, might display a certain type of shiftiness on the part of the nominator. Given that this is the third occasion when someone wants the article to be deleted, but no-one was notified among those that had had an interest in participating in the previous voting discussions, regarding any proceeding that might be resulted in the deletion of the article. It was User:KovacsIstvanGezaAlmos the only one user who was notified [1] whose contributions to Wikipedia were nothing more than to create this article and then the account started to doze and has been inactive for 2 years.--Nmate (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this is the first time this article has been nominated for deletion. (The previous two deletion discussions were for a different article, albeit on the same topic.) Nothing requires a nominator to notify anyone of a deletion discussion, though it's customary to notify at least the original author. Please don't cast aspersions on other participants in this debate; whether or not this article will be kept will be judged on the basis of whether it meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and not the motivations of those who participate in this discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator.Wladthemlat (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - It may look as a coatrack in this present form, but other examples about this subject exist..as Anti-Polish, Serbophobia, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Anti-French sentiment in the United States... also this problem is real and it should be well documented. If improved I think this article could be all-right. Adrian (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and improve - I'm sorry, but I have to call the nominator a cynical hypocrite. He's arguing for removal with arguments that can be attributed to the fact that the article has been nominated for deletion twice (once even successfully). Since all the old content has been removed, the article had to be started from scratch again. This alone however shouldn't warrant its removal, only indicate that further expansion is neecessary.
Looking back at the votings in the previous 2 nominations I have a feeling that both were heavily slanted towards the opposing opinion due to the fact that it was mostly editors with a somewhat palpable anti-Hungarian affiliation who have voted (e.g. Yopie who tends to vote with Slovak editors on Hungarian-related topics/proposals) and thus the article was deleted. Yet the article was recreated again (and survived the second nomination as if by a miracle) AFAIK by a different editor. This alone might implicate that the topic IS considered to be notable by itself.
The other argument I've seen to be used over and over again in the previous votes was the "we should delete it, because it's POV material which only deals with events of the past anyway" one. This statement alone (or the likes of it) sounds like as if it were written by one of the anti-Hungarian chauvinists. Ironically it has also been used by one of the previous nominators as well, who claims herself to be Hungarian. Unfortunately nothing could be further from truth. It's true that anti-Hungarian sentiment is not perceived by people (even Hungarians) who don't live in areas where Hungarians constitute a minority or don't have such friends. But I've been born and raised in Bratislava (one of the very few people who can call themselves to be native inhabitants of the city BTW). A mere century ago this city used to be one of the most tolerant cities not only throughout Austria-Hungary but the rest of Europe as well. This was evidenced by the fact that the neologue synagogue of the city was built right next to the coronation cathedral of St. Martin. In the past century however it has been transformed into a city of intolerance. The synagogue has been destroyed by the Communists (along with a significant portion of the historical center as well), the statue of Maria Theresa has been toppled, various buildings were disfigured (e.g. the railway station) and the surrounding villages have been razed to the ground to give place for the "new" and "modern" tenement complexes which are unthinkably ugly and pose an eyesore up to this day. This has also brought in people from all over the country who had no tolerance for Hungarians or anything else for that matter (let alone city aesthetics/architecture). This means that Bratislava became a city filled with bitter and ill-willed people who don't mind kicking into Hungarians either. I've experienced this myself numerous times when I was verbally harassed by such "immigrants" and even elderly. Also, if any of you would bother reading my translation of the things User:Bizovne wrote using his IP sock on my talk page, you'd see that anti-Hungarian sentiment is ever-present and still at its height. Therefore it's definitely NOT an event of the past nor is it limited to politicians. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying (i.e. he's a cynical nationalist himself) or ignorant (e.g. he never heard of the problem and therefore ASSUMES -you know, the thing that makes an ASS of U and ME- that it's nonexistent).
Also, Filelakeshoe you wrote on your userpage that you've been to Slovakia and Hungary as well. Since trains go to Budapest and Balaton (the most popular tourist locations in Hungary) from Czech republic only via Bratislava, I assume that you've been there as well. Did you EVER wonder why is it that there are no Hungarian signs in the city at all (except for inscriptions on some of the fountains which haven't been removed during their "renovations")? Hint: no, it's NOT for the fact that there are no Hungarian tourists in the city. Since Bratislava (under the aliases "Pressburg/Preßburg/Pozsony/Posony") was the capital of Hungary for centuries, it is of major historical significance for Hungarians (especially for the fact that coronations took place there as well). The lack of Hungarian signs in the "Slovak capital" in fact is also one of the clues which hint to the fact that strong anti-Hungarian sentiments are present in Slovakia up to this day. I've also been to Transylvania where the situation seems to be pretty much the same. So once again, the article should stay. -- CoolKoon (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't personally attack the nominator or the participants of this or other deletion discussions. Deletion discussions are not votes; they're decided not by how many people advocate keeping or deleting the article, but by arguments grounded in Wikipedia's policies. Whether or not any given participant is pro- or anti-Hungarian is irrelevant; what matters is what they can demonstrate about the article's notability, the reliability of its sources, and so on. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is currently mostly original synthesis, and needs to be extensively re-written. However, anti-hungarian sentiment is a notable topic which should be discussed by Wikipedia. On the nominators claim that there is no significant coverage of anti-hungarian sentiment, see this book - [2] --Anthem of joy (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Even physical attacks on Hungarians as a standalone topic could easily be backed up by a number of reliable sources. Squash Racket (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is a disjoint collection of unrelated instances of anti-Hungarian statements, none of whose notability is indicated. It's therefore a completely original synthesis. For this article to be kept, it needs references to reliable sources discussing anti-Hungarian sentiment in general. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This contribution from User:Future Perfect at Sunrise to the first nomination of this article bears repeating:
Common rationale, repeated here for convenience: Articles like this are legitimate only in cases like Anti-Semitism where there is a substantial body of academic, third-party literature that discusses the phenomenon as such in its entirety (as opposed to simply individual events described as "anti-X'ist"). Otherwise the synthesis of such events constitutes WP:OR. Legitimate information pertaining to individual historical situations can be integrated elsewhere, for instance in articles on "History of X" or "X-Y relations".
—Psychonaut (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately your arguments are entirely hypocritical and irrelevant. You even could've written that you want to have it deleted because you just don't like it. For some reason you seem to be hung up on the current content which is NOT related to the topic or its notability itself. You see there are sources which mention this phenomenon in connection with Jews: [3] The fact that "anti-Hungarian sentiments" and "hungarophobia" are mentioned out of context as well points to the fact that the topic is of high notability. You seem to be keen on wikilawyering and cite every possible policy you can find to prove why are your opponents' arguments completely false, but keep forgetting in the process that the same rules can be applied to your arguments as well. However since you seem to disregard almost any argument one gives and just hide behind the wikirules instead of doing some logical reasoning, I don't think you'll reach an agreement with anyone here let alone the ones who oppose you. -- CoolKoon (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the current content is not related to the topic of the article, then it should be removed from the article. If it is not replaced with relevant material, the article should be marked for speedy deletion with {{db-empty}}. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I have nothing against the removal of irrelevant content. However you just went ahead and based your whole attitude about this topic on the fact that it contains some hastily compiled data. But once again please do NOT assume bad faith. -- CoolKoon (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well established, notable topic. Reliable sources are easy to find. The current article content is not relevant in terms of deciding whether the topic is notable or not. Even a cursory check into sources and literature shows a large number of sources to draw from including a large amount of historical material. Hobartimus (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion isn't about some hypothetical article which could possibly be constructed from these supposedly easy-to-find reliable sources; it's about the current article content. If sources exist which establish notability of the topic, then please add this information to the article so that it can be kept. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but in my experience deletion discussion can never be about the current article content. If it were the case someone could just simply delete most of any article during the discussion and point to the new content as reason to delete. In fact during one deletion discussion a participant deleted 30% of an article in a single edit and expected that the article would be deleted just because of the current content changed. Of course it was kept because his deletion had no effect on the underlying question of the topic's notability. Regardless I may just edit this article later, but not because "so it can be kept". Notability of the topic is why it should be kept, not because I personally edit it to have good content. Of course the article content is not satisfactory now. Ironically, for example it was edited by a well known anti-Hungarian banned user [4] under multiple sockpuppets even. We can say it was one of the targets attacked by this banned user. Can you guarantee this banned user will not attack it in the future, should someone chooses to improve the article? Perhaps with more sockpuppets , or by proxies (you can read the warning sign on his user page, "Banned user Iaaasi has been soliciting users by e-mail in an attempt to get people to edit on his behalf. " since he often contacts others to edit for him). You see the issue of improving this article is a bit more complex here. Hobartimus (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your experiences are not reflective of Wikipedia practices. For example, we do not keep attack pages nominated for deletion merely because the subject of the attack is notable. Either the deletion discussion prompts someone to revise the article into something written from a neutral point of view, or else the article is deleted (without prejudice to its recreation in a neutral form at some later date). In any event, your argument for this particular article's notability is simply WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Please be advised that it is not sufficient to merely claim that sources exist establishing the subject's notability; you must actually produce these sources and show that they are reliable. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-arabism, Anti-Semitism, Anti-German sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Americanism, Serbophobia, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-French sentiment in the United States, Francophobia; Anti-Turkism, Anti-Russian sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Italianism etc.
Also: see at least the exact search term "anti-Hungarian sentiment" at Google Books to indicate notability. Squash Racket (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and particularly the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES page already posted. You have just made the exact argument this page advises against: "it is important to specify the actual sources which can be used instead of just linking to a search of them, and to consider whether these sources provide enough information to write a reasonably detailed article on the subject". —Psychonaut (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think you cite policies, guidelines correctly, because you don't seem to know anything about the topic of this article at all. Please read at least the Treaty of Trianon article before further comments.
WP:OTHERSTUFF also says: When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."
Meanwhile I'm copying a couple of sources from the talk page of the article:
Squash Racket (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One needn't have any understanding of the topic in question to identify a specious argument for keeping or deleting the article. Thank you for finally providing some specific sources, though. Someone who does have an understanding of the topic can now review them to determine whether they are reliable sources establishing notability. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been shown above that this is clearly a notable topic. POV and SYNTH issues can be dealt with by normal editing rather than deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hungarians in Slovakia, although I fully expect that ultimately at article can be written on the subject. I agree with the rationale attributed to Future Perfect above. This reminds me greatly of what Uncle G used refer to as cargo-cult writing - you can't just dump a collection of referenced facts and hope an article magically will emerge. Instead, we need to reflect what reliable sources (and in this type of article, scholarly sources would be best) have written, otherwise we sink into the POV ethnicity driven problems we've seen before. Given the structure imposed by the parent article, I expect that this section could grow, and ultimate break out into its own article. Until then, a redirect is preferable. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete per above. This may well be a notable subject, but on the basis of the sources currently available, which concern individual incidents, no policy-compliant article can be written about it. To avoid original research, a reliable source would need to address this phenomenon directly, comprehensively and in detail.  Sandstein  06:10, 4 June 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Hungarian_sentiment_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1137571230"