Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Hungarian sentiment (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hungarian sentiment[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page was deleted in 2007, but it was later recreated in 2009 with almost the same content. Plz delete it. --maxval (talk) 09:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopaedic. This article is just a list of non-notable events, presented here as grievances of one nation against its neighbors. --Yopie (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete same arguments used in 2007 should apply here --Kvng (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete its unencyclopaedic. --maxval (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC) struck repeat vote by nominator Otto4711 (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy CSD G4. MSJapan (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is stupendous.

One, multifarious articles exist about anti-national_sentiment on English Wikipedia. [1] Second, Maxval is being blocked on Hungarian Wikipedia for a month for hated speech. Yopie is a quite disruptive one, whose agenda is to delete Hungarian realated content from Wikipedia with a poor command of English. I promised him to report to the Arbitration Committee that I am ready to redeem. The another ones just encroached upon the deletion process without having a proper knowledge on the topic. So that it is stupendous.--Nmate (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am blocked on Hungarian Wikipedia because I proposed deletion of the same article there. Hungarian chauvinistic Wiki administrators blocked me for this reason. They even blocked editing of my own editors page - this is clearly against all rules. --maxval (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is manifestly not true. You've been blocked because you used crude language, hateful expletives, e.g. you told one Admin, 'F... you, you Arrow Cross lover! I'm leaving this filthy, chauvinistic shithole right now.' See hu:Szerkesztővita:Maxval#Hangnem --Pagony (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not true. I never used the "fuck" word. And plz try to see what has happened before that. Being admin is not the same as having rights to violate Wikipedia rules. And I prefer telling the truth - if an admin is a chauvinistic pig, then I won't hide my opinion. I won't participate any more in your nationalistic pseudo-Wiki project, so don't worry, you can create even more chauvinistic articles, no problem for me. But plz try to keep your shitty racist propaganda only in your shitty racist site. Your racist and chauvinistic approach is not welcome elsewhere. I am receveing every day severeal hate mail from your admins, users and their supporters in my email box, plz tell them that being a little civilized won't hurt... --maxval (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anti-arabism, Anti-Semitism, Anti-German sentiment, Anti-Iranian sentiment, Anti-Americanism, Serbophobia, Anti-Romanian discrimination, Antiziganism, Anti-British sentiment, Anti-French sentiment in the United States, Francophobia; Anti-Turkism, Anti-Russian sentiment, Anti-Polish sentiment, Anti-Italianism, Sinophobia, Indophobia and a great deal more. I can hardly believe that everybody loves Hungarians so much that this phenomenon is simply non-existant. I have also difficulties to believe that all the other similar articles deal with realistic issues but Hungarians seem to be so lovable that the article at question contains only unencyclopaedic information and a list of unwarranted grievances by some Hungarians against their neighbors. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 23:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there may be an article to be written on the subject of anti-Hungarian sentiment but this ain't it. Four of the five sources are thoroughly unreliable (the fifth is not in English so I can't make a determination). The article engages in original research by synthesis by taking incidents which may or may not be related to one another (a politician making an anti-Hungarian remark, graffiti on a Hungarian monument, etc.) and asserting that they are evidence of established anti-Hungarian sentiment. While I did not review all of the counter-examples offered above, those I checked now and those I've read previously all contain a multitude of references in unquestionably reliable sources. The existence of one or a series of articles on various prejudices against various races and ethnicities does not in any way justify articles on this or any other such prejudice since each article stands or falls on its own merits and available sourcing. Suggest that any interested party write and properly source an article on the subject in user space and have it reviewed by a third party before it is moved to article space. Otto4711 (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete My hovercraft is full of eels. per nom Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think there is a subtle but important distinction between ethnic rivalries in the region (which may be more about political positioning), and the idea of an anti-hungarianism that is more widespread and based on stereotypes. I have no doubt that with enough research, anti-hungarian sentiment could warrant an article (hopefully its not too widespread), but as Otto points out, this isnt it. this articles current content can be safely deleted. i would support Ottos suggestion to offer the article re-creation to an interested party. unrelated, humorous aside: I would recommend we create an article on Anti-Belgian sentiment, but perhaps its better to not say anything about them at all.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Rokarudi. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that the deletion of this (or any) article does not make the given phenomenon non-existent. – Tomeczek ^Message 09:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unfortunately, it is not only existent, but permament. The deletion request of Maxval is a part of his trolling in Hungarian Wikipedia for what he has been blocked. Gubbubu (talk) 09:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Rokarudi. I would've thought it was quite obvious. Maxval has been carrying on a one-man crusade against what he takes for Hungarian nationalism in Huwiki -- and each time he stuffs his edit summaries with hateful expletives against individual editors there. What is nonreliable here is Maxval and Maxval alone, not the article. --Pagony (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MAXVAL is hungarian notoriety swindler and inflamer in hungarian sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.228.142.199 (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is unencyclopedic, no special definition of the term can be found anywhere in the reliable sources. The cases mantioned can be used in an article "List of anti-hungarian violence cases" or something of that sort. Wladthemlat (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe that deleting this article for being unencyclopedic means that all similar articles should be deleted for the same reason. I do not think that one nation can be considered more encyclopedic than an other. I am afraid, though, that anti-national sentiment is a real issue (for (almost?) all nations). I have tried to do a quick search using Google to find out if there is something on the internet on anti-Hungarianism. I did not intend to do a thorough search, however, here are some links that may be of interest: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]]. If the only issue is the poor content of the article, one might as well find useful information in these to improve the text. Szaszicska (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a poor sourced original research by synthesis. There may be an article to be written on the subject, but the encyclopedic proof is missing from this article. There is nothing to improve, should be rewritten. Karmela (talk) 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Rokarudi and Pagony. The subject is exists and notable, the article can be improved. Also it's a bad practice to export the edit wars from huwiki to enwiki like Maxval does, with his uncivil style. Gepcsirke (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Rokarudi, even if the article should significantly be improved. For example, Lucian Boia's book could also be used. Borsoka (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the topic is noteworthy but the current article is crap. --Tgr (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BLOWS WHISTLE - the personal attacks and accusations need to stop. This is a discussion about an article on the English Wikipedia. This is not the place to re-ignite a flamewar from the Hungarian Wikipedia. Settle your differences in your own back yard, ladies and/or gentlemen, because it's not welcome here. Otto4711 (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it was sad above, this nomination is a result of a saga laden with fierce debates, personal attacks, blocks that the nominator received for them, all on the Hungarian Wikipedia, not here. The nominator was never even intrested in this article only the parallel article written in Hungarian. Maybe the Hungarian article is crap or biased or whatever, but those issues he has can't be resolved here. In fact the article was a single sentence before(check the article history before july 25th), so it's very clear everything, all his problems were about the article in Hungarian which is couple of pages long. So the debate needs to be sorted out there where it actually took place, and be about the article that was actually the problem [7] [8]. Of course personal attacks made on enwiki are still actionable on enwiki. Hobartimus (talk) 06:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep My biggest issue is the nomination stating that the article was recreated using the exact same text as the reviously deleted article. The articles current history does show a degree of evolution. I am not fully convinced that argument is indeed correct. Can an admin who can view deletion history verify this???., That aside as it does not fully impact the current discussion (just may add a bit of perspective to the discussion) as we look at the article today not yesterday anyway. One primary motivation for deletion last time was that the article was full of synthesis and original research. Is that an issue today? This article is referenced albiet these references should be improved. This is mainly due to the article being extremelely POV (borderline still a synth issue, but limited in its OR in my belief) on the selectioning of events discussed. I dont believe the sake of other articles (anti-X) existing should impact this article (See WP:OTHERSTUFF for further rationale behind this), with this article alone, i do see some oppertunity to improve the article if someone were to take the time, so i would side on a weak keep.Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability given in article. Compare with Anti-Irish racism, which does a better job of showing the notability of the subject.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I collected a few sources at Talk:Anti-Hungarian_sentiment#Sources - writing them into the article will be left to someone else though. --Tgr (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as the subject is valid (cf Anti-Romanian sentiment). I agree that the article is rather poor in its present form, yet I cannot agree with deletion since it would make it more difficult for someone to start a more encyclopedic article on the subject. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a tough one. The article at the moment probably barely contains any encyclopedic text, which would qualify it for speedy deletion. There are two heavy arguments against its (repeated) deletion. First the deletion request is obviously another episode of some unfortunate events that have taken place on the Hungarian Wikipedia (which is quite surprising considering the fact that the HU Wiki is normally a peaceful place, where editing's a joy, really :P), which means the deletion nomination itself shows HEAVY bias. Second the topic itself is of very important nature. To understand this second point a bit more, let me give you a brief story:

collapsing details which are off-topic for an AfD discussion

I'm a resident of Bratislava, Slovakia. I've also spent most of my life here as well (with a brief episode of living in Budapest, Hungary). According to a recent (2001) census ~6% of the >400,000 city speaks Hungarian as their native language. If you do the math, you'll find that the amount of Hungarians living in Bratislava roughly equals the population of Dunajská Streda, Slovakia, which is inhabited almost entirely (>90%) by Hungarians. Yet while there are 4 Hungarian primary schools in DS, there are only 2 in BA (with so few pupils in those two that in a few years at least one of them might just close down). Of course that's a fine example of the way of thinking and attitude of the Hungarian-speaking rural population. They basically say what's brainwashed into them by Slovak nationalist organizations: the only way one can survive in Slovakia is if he learns to speak Slovak perfectly. Sure, there's nothing wrong with learning the language which majority of the people use in Slovakia in their daily communication (and enables one to understand Czech quite well too), but such thinking leads to a sort of hypercorrection. You see these people seem to think that if they move to Bratislava, they HAVE TO send their children to a Slovak school instead of a Hungarian one as that's the only way (according to them that is) for their children to learn "proper" Slovak (i.e. without that "awful" and "horrible" Hungarian accent). Of course since EVERYBODY living in Bratislava speaks Slovak, anyone living there for an extended period will learn to speak Slovak almost flawlessly, whether they want it or not. Therefore these rural Hungarians' way of thinking is greatly flawed. Unfortunately nobody can explain this to them and Slovak nationalists don't help matters either.

Another story came into my mind as well. In connection with recent elections in Slovakia a huge division line has been uncovered again: most of the country is heavily in favor of populists of any kind (and regardless of their political orientation, except the liberals of course), of which Vladimir Meciar and Robert Fico are prime examples. Leftist or nationalist, doesn't really matter. And according to these people everybody who's opposed to their ideologies and (flawed) way of thinking is labeled an anti-Slovak (even if he's a closeted Slovak nationalist who only hates the extremists). Since Bratislava and its metro area has voted mostly in favor of the conservative-liberal parties, it's been deemed anti-Slovak and the center of the anti-Slovak activities (which was nothing more than a petty political play by some campaigners of the leftist-populist party that's been forced to opposition by the recent elections). Ironically I've got my share of anti-Hungarian incidents there myself. I was insulted by numerous people on the street out of the blue. Some called me "fucking Hungarian" (skurvený/í Maďar/i), "Hungarians to the other side of Danube" (Maďari za Dunaj), "In Slovakia only in Slovak" (na Slovensku po slovensky) and once a stupid old bitch has been yelling at me on the bus (she's seen me reading a Hungarian newspaper), fortunately the bus driver has threatened to throw her out so then she shat up (she's been yelling/screaming for five minutes straight, even after I've told her to knock it off, since she's not in Slotatown). My point is that all these incidents have happened to me in the most liberal Slovak-spaking city of Slovakia. Surprising, isn't it? Well, actually it isn't. At least it's not for any Hungarian living in Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania or Serbia. Such incidents DO happen, however incredible may they seem. And the expansion of this article would serve exactly this purpose: it would summarize a latent problem present in states with significant Hungarian minorities. Sure, some would hate for this to happen, because they firmly believe that such problems are nonexistent and Hungarians just make them up to cause trouble/border revision/bad voodoo (they even tend to blame their hatred towards Hungarians on the fact that Hungarians exaggerate every little problem). And I'd be so glad to see such people getting stroke or something after reading about such stuff (their English-speaking portion at least :P) that I'm willing to make this sacrifice ;) CoolKoon (talk) 19:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy and here I wanted to get out of this Slovakia-Hungary bs but I just can´t let this go uncommented. First according to 2001 Census there are 431672 inhibitants in Bratislava and from them 14909 are Hungarians, that´s 3.4 percent of population. In Dunajská Streda 112384 citiziens, from them 93 660 are Hungarians [9]. That means 6 times more. So much for the number of Hungarian elementary schools. Next, wether you like to believe it or not Bratislava is capital of Slovakia, the country where only official language is Slovak. Of course, you don´t have to learn it but than don´t expect to be a shining example of emoployee of a month. Frankly, I really don´t know what this whining is all about - you can go to Vienna, live there, start a family there and I guarantee you taht without active knowledge of German you won´t find a job even in McDonalds. Correct me if I´m wrong but please tell me, imagine for a moment that you´re, say, Slovak living in a Hungary. Tell me, who´d employ you without the knowledge of Hungarian language. So much for the first part of your post (bytheway, please, CoolKoon next time try to check your sources).

Than again, for god sake, the latest elections were won by right-wing parties (SDKU, SaS, Most and KDH) with HZDS NOT making it into the parliament and SNS beeing damn close to be left before the gates. Unfortunatelly it didn´t happen but we still got another chance in 2014. But back to topic, because some people have still tendency to forget about this thing. And wether you believe it or not there is a tension between Western Slovakia (and especially Bratislava) and the rest of the republic for last century, for Bratislava and western Slovakia beeing too rich, therefore folks from central and eastern Slovakia thinks that bad, bad Bratislava and western region is taking all money for them. Now that´s not a phenomenon of Slovakia, as some would think, but of the whole world where pooere regions envy the richer ones - for example Eastern Europe vs. Western Europe, Czechs vs. Germans, Slovaks vs. Austrians, Poles vs. Germans and so on. On regional level it is presented in every damn country on this continent, better get used to it. About the incidents - two years ago when I was in London some good fellas in metro heared me talking with my friend in Slovak, than I heared only "f*cking Russians, where do you think you are and" and we had to GTFO ASAP otherwise it wouldn´t so pleasant evening. So what now, is London anti-liberal city or what? This baised BS only showed the inteligence of not the one who wrote it, since what he´s doing is writing about his experiences, but of the one who posted it and used it for his nationalistic propaganda and generalisation. Contugralutions CoolKoon, you fit in this categotry just fine. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? Why are you lying? And besides you should definitely try and improve your English, because at times it's really hard to understand the point(s) you're trying to make (not that it's relevant to the discussion). Anyway, could you tell me how the hell did you figure out that DS has a population of over 100,000?! The whole DISTRICT has that much, not the city itself! The only city in the area that comes even CLOSE to being that big is Győr, Hungary. Obviously you've never been to DS at all, otherwise you'd never say such nonsense. Believe me I'd be overjoyed if that would be true, unfortunately even Komárno isn't that populous. Unfortunately the statistics site you've linked covers only separate statistics for each district of BA, not the city as a whole (what an idiocy). Therefore I didn't bother adding up all those numbers to check the BA part of your comment. Still, the share of Hungarian-speakers is definitely more than 3.4%. It's around 4-5% in BA proper, which means it's ALMOST as much Hungarians living in BA as in DS (give or take a thousand or two). Therefore the lack of pupils in the two elementary school's still inexplicable by "traditional" means. Maybe you should check your sources (and get the facts right) too.

You probably didn't understand my point about the comment regarding the usage of Slovak. As I said, your English definitely needs some improvement. I'll say it again: I DID NOT say that Hungarians SHOULDN'T learn Slovak. I said that they are HYPERCORRECTING/OVERCOMPENSATING in the process. If you have trouble interpreting these two words, then look them up in the dictionary (this is a good one). If all fails I can explain it to you in Slovak as well (but on your talk page instead). So once again: they SHOULD learn Slovak, BUT they SHOULD NOT forget or give up Hungarian language/culture thinking that it's superfluous/unnecessary/out of fashion/something they will definitely get by without. Because that's what's happening with Hungarians who move to BA. Speaking of which the same thing happens with Slovaks living in Hungary. I've read up some stuff on the topic and figured out the problem isn't entirely caused by the government (at least since 1989). Slovaks can have education in their native language, unfortunately they don't bother. And if they don't want the education, nobody can force it on them.

Of course the elections were won by right-wing parties. But the result was VERY close indeed (and their majority is quite fragile as we know) and all the leftists talk about a right-wing "patchwork" that doesn't have the right to form the new government (as each individual party's gotten less vote than Fico's Smer alone). To make matters worse, Smer began a silent post-election (WTF?) campaign against Bratislava and right-wing parties in general, asking on billboards whether arrogant Bratislava will rule over the rest of Slovakia as well (ironically I've seen this slogan in Bratislava itself as well :D). Anyway back to my point. You see obviously you and your "genuinely" Slovak colleagues just fail to realize that HZDS has dropped out and SNS was close to dropping out of the parliament NOT because the ideologies they represent became unpopular in Slovakia, far from it (for some reason this is exactly what some political analysts in Hungary seem to think as well). The real motive behind the loss of the votes by these parties is the fact that Smer has actually adopted the agenda they represent and convinced former SNS and HZDS voters to vote for them instead. And actually this is what landed Fico in the opposition. He betrayed his former allies. This doesn't mean that people in rural areas of Slovakia hate Bratislava and right-wing parties less per se, but it's VERY irresponsible and ignorant to elevate such preexistent tensions using demagoguery for purely political reasons. And Fico's a master of this art. He has done it before with Hungarians (that's what you consequently try to deny and eradicate from articles such as Hungarian-Slovak relations) now he's doing it again. This time he feels that he has a better chance for success if he makes the Slovaks hate each other. Because as you said, Bratislava is almost entirely Slovak, so if comrade Fico succeeds, rural Slovaks would grow to hate the Slovaks living in the Bratislava metro area. Yet you subscribe to and keep defending the ideologies presented by himself, even though you formally deny any sympathies with him. You're actually doing the same he does: label your opponents as nationalists, imply their arrogance and lack of intellect, accuse them of ulterior motives all the time, then you turn around and do EXACTLY the same you accuse your opponents of. Don't you feel a little bit......spineless, to say at least? CoolKoon (talk) 21:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments used in [[10]]. Since the article itself was not changed, the POV parts were not removed therefore basicly it´s still the same article and the result of the latest discussion about deletion applies here as well. --EllsworthSK (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note The above voter, Ellsworth, was notified of this discussion by user:Yopie the notification is here and a similar one. It's notable that there were no notifications by Yopie to people who voted keep. And I think if any fair minded person reads the above post by Ellsworth ( the one with "nationalistic propaganda and generalistaion" in it) has no doubt about his attitude on the topic "Anti-Hungarian sentiment"... 06:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Talk:Anti-Hungarian sentiment#Sources.--Pink Bull 16:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section referenced above is a proposal to rewrite the article. How does this support a Keep? --Kvng (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles listed in the section demonstrate that the subject has received substantial coverage, thus meeting Wikipedia's notability standard. --Pink Bull 18:13, 3 August 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.