Talk:László Skultéty

Recent edits

To be more detailed and specific as the "discussion" in the edit logs, to have a good consensus not just one side has to give up some things. It is totally looking paranoic to avoid the designation "Hungarian" on such grounds we meet up - recently again - in some articles. I. e. John Hunyadi was Hungarian military and political figure, dispite of his disputed/foreign origin, as many other person who may had foreign roots, such designatons in the lead never refers explicity ethnicity, there are myriads of articles of sportsmen or politicians etc., primarily it is designating the belonging to a state ( = nationality, that should not be confused with ethnicity!). As Béla Bugár is a Slovak politician, etc. Regarding Skultéty, his Hungarian nationality was never under debate, this histeria opened up regarding his re-burial incident, and boiled a debate over his ethnicity. Also we have to be careful with that recent phenomenon that in many cases systematically those persons are regarded Slovak who was born, acted or lived in the territory of present-day Slovakia back in time. Some cases it's easier to distuinguish, sometimes not, not just current revisions, but contemporary situations, evaluations have to be taken also into account. Among almost the full and uncriticized representation of the Slovak point of view, the removal of the Hungarian nationality in the infobox was tolerated, but to claim also the removal being a Hungarian Hussar is by far. He was not a French, American, Spanish or Italian or Papua New Guinean Hussar, but a Hungarian one, from Hungary and born in Hungary and known and recognized in the contemporary times also as Hungarian Hussar, even by foreign people. It has no connection to his possible self-declaration and self-identification that may help in some cases, if not known. We cannot change history back in time and such debates are boring and useless. All important details are in the page, but so long a contemporary source does not call him as a "Slovak Hussar" explicity, it is a waste of precious time to spend on this.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC))

Kiengir, there are several personalities from the common history whose ethnicity is disputed, for example:

• László Skultéty
• Sámuel Mikoviny
• András Hadik
• József Károly Hell

and many others.

All of them are (or were) presented in English Wikipedia without any further comment or notice exclusively as Hungarians and their names are written here in Hungarian forms. Information about the ethnicity of other people who openly declared Slovak nationality, like György Kossuth alias Ďuro alias Juraj Košút was removed in the past by Hungarian editors like Norden1990 and they were made "Hugarians". So, your claim about the alleged "full and uncriticized representation of the Slovak point of view" is literally comic.

Instead of primitive nationalistic edit wars or primitive comments like "Slovak chauvinistic historians, who claim that anyone lived in the territory of present-day Slovakia before the 20th century, he/she had to be Slovak" (Norden1990) or allegations like "we have to be careful with that recent phenomenon that in many cases systematically those persons are regarded Slovak who was born, acted or lived in the territory of present-day Slovakia back in time" (KIENGIR), I rather suggest properly describe all relevant views and to seek ways how to present them in a neutral way.

I can also use statements like "chauvinist Hungarian historians presents everybody who lived in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary as an ethnic Hungarian (Magyar)" or something about "a recent phenomen that in many cases systematically those persons who acted or lived in the Kingdom of Hungary are regarded as Hungarians/Magyars", but I WILL NOT do it, because it is unscientific. Ditinili (talk) 07:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

If your properly understood me, current debate does not go on possible ethnicity, at the same time I cannot take responsibility what was before or other editor's what did or they did not do, I can take only responsibility only to myself (In the listed articles now not just "exclusive" Hungarian "opinions" are present, I checked Hell's article recently, I've never seen it before, he seems to be a Hungarian of German extraction). As I recall noone objected your move from György Kossuth->Juraj Košút. The qoute from me is not whole and not even comic, just see the recent two articles we have engaged. I am convinced my allegation holds for some part of the Slovak recensions/revisions (and of course I did not generalize, it seemed you would have insisted on this). What you suggest has been already made, with an extensive free degree, so you cannot say neutrailty would not have been supported. Your conditional statement in the last pharagraph would not totally hold, since as you said, it would be unscientific on the other hand would not totally hold recently or for every/majority of historians). As you see, I repeat the main discussion is not about ethnicity, also like by John Hunyadi.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC))

I appreciate that you are able to understand that this term can mean literally whatever ethnicity. The problem raises when somebody begin to claim that somebody or something is "historic" Hungarian and thereafter he starts to present him/it as an ethnic Hungarian/Magyar with all consequences. This affects personal names, placenames, removal of information about other views, inappropriate comments about "recent phenomenon", "de-Hungarization", "chauvinistic science", etc.

Similar edits are regularly checked and opposed at least by four Hungarian editors. Two or three of them were warned or even temporarily blocked in the past for hate speech or uncivil behavior. So, you really cannot complain on some "uncriticized presentation of Slovak POVs" and please, try to avoid similar statements for the future. Thank you. Ditinili (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand, however now such heavy claim on ethnicity did not occur as well, recently not information were removed but allowed. I don't understand why "recent phenomenon" or "de-Hungarianization" would be inappropriate (I think these were addressed to me). I don't think if it is a good think to blame editors without a strong reason, since every situation or issue has to be judged and investigated on it's own, necessarily such things are coming up if meet a tendentious problem, however also you have a history with these editors, and it was not always as "beafutiful" as you would consider it vica versa. Maybe some cases were overreacted or were unfortunate, you have to admit also many things are on your shoulders. Regarding "uncriticized presentation of Slovak POVs" I meant that none of the additions and the information and/or it's background or reason was not challenged or commented with further additions that would alter the messages of those sentences, so I don't understand what is your problem with the statement.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC))

"I don't think if it is a good think to blame editors without a strong reason", I fully agree. So, please try avoid statements like "de-Hungarization of Wikipedia" just because somebody mentioned that some historic figures are considered as "their" by several nations. Also in this case, the information about Slovaks was somehow "lost" already the next day after our dispute, so what "uncricized presentation of Slovak POVs" are you talking about.

Some historical figures are simply Slovak as well as Hungarian and in some cases Austrian. Ditinili (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Your assertion does not hold, since I did not make such statement like "de-Hungarization of Wikipedia" (should I ask to avoid citing statements I did not make?). If you answer 2 days later and criticizing me about what I wrote about the past, I feel it unfair, since I had/have - still today - not any ability to see in the future. Maybe you agree I did not make to "loose" anything, if my guess is flawless about what you'd refer of (who knows...), if so it seems you have necessarily more disagreement with others on something.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC))

I did not make such statement like "de-Hungarization of Wikipedia".

Quote: "Sorry, I disagree, quite generously we let almost all of your "de-Hungarianization"" Revision as of 18:48, 17 March 2017, KIENGIR. --Ditinili (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your approval of my statement that the fragment you have tried to address to me never existed.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC))

Kiengir, I do not write about some alleged Magyarization of the article, so do not write about alleged de-Huhungarization. If all parties avoid similar statements it would better. --Ditinili (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I'd use in such context "alleged" and I don't know how such would align about what you could have possibly written. I've just simply drawn a conclusion of some recent edits and noticed such type of transitions.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC))

Nobody used the unclear OR "historic Hungarian" phrase, only you. This term is only a part of falsification of history by Slovak "scholars" who even reject the continuity between the Kingdom of Hungary ("Uhorsko"...) and present-day Hungary. But this is the English wiki, and the English language decided the question. Before the era of nationalism, several subjects considered himself Hungarians (hungarus consciousness), regardless ethnicity and mother tongue. You do not want to understand this and try to Slovakize retroactively those persons who never considered themselves Slovaks and their ethnicity was irrelevant in the multi-ethnic kingdom. For instance, every Slav-origin (proto-Slovak) nobles were proud members of the Hungarian nobility (this term means a legal status and nationality, not ethnicity). So the term "Slovak noble" is deliberately counterfeiting of a pre-existing historical status. Today nationalist Slovaks debate lot of people's ethnicity based on that only fact that they originated from Upper Hungary (Felvidék). But the Fico cabinet's claim is not a reliable source for Skultéty's ethnicity, for instance. Who will be the next? Matúš Čák Trenčiansky, František Forgáč, Juraj Turzo, František Vešeléni, Alexander Petrovič and Ľudovít Košut? Of course, Slovak wiki can use this fabricated names, but this is the English wiki. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Norden, it would be interesting to discuss some theories about formation of modern nations. However, primitive ultra-nationalistic views presented by you - e.g. your statements about chauvinist Slovak historians who want to make Slovak from every historic person from present-day Slovakia, your primitive statements about falsification of history, non-existinence of Slovak nation or alleged invention of the Slovak language in the 18th or the 19th century, makes any discussion very difficult.

Who will be the next? I don't know and it does not matter until we use reliable sources written by recognized scholars.Ditinili (talk) 11:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

As I see, e.g., nobody used the term "chauvinist" only you, I did not see too many arguments about the "non-existinence of Slovak nation" either. It seems to me that you are fighting with imaginary opponents, whose (virtual) arguments might indeed be primitive, but then you identify these imaginations with your fellow editors' ideas. Not a nice approach to Wikipedia. Be a bit more open and try to get rid of your preconceptions. I am sure that a consensus can be reached if the participants try hard enough. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Koertefa, let me cite the relevant sentence. Norden knows well what I am talking about, you did not participate:

"Modern scholars mostly use Sámuel Mikoviny form, except Slovak chauvinistic historians, who claim that anyone lived in the territory of present-day Slovakia before the 20th century, he/she had to be Slovak. It's really boring now. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC) (diff)

In my opinion, the comments like this are really examples of primitive chauvinism, I can cite also other his statements mentioned above, e.g. about the invention of the Slovak language in the 19th century, etc.

Koertefa, I hope that other editors will not behave the same way. I hope that they will not write about "chauvinist Hungarian historians", how do they "falsify history", they will not rely on outdated theories about the origin of Hungarians, etc. It is simply not constructive and does not improve articles.

There are chapters in the common history which can be interpreted differently in both historiographies. It is absolutely OK to mention both until we rely on recognized scholars and we should respect it instead of accusation and offending. Thank you for your time. Ditinili (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)