This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Although this article pretends to be biography ( WP:Biography), it is only the description of a single event ( WP:BIO1E). Additionaly, it probably violates WP:NOT#NEWS. I request to move this article to the event description or to move it to Wikinews, until the cause is closed and resolved by police and courts. 147.175.98.213 ( talk) 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Another attack happened, this time in Besztercebánya. Source. [1] I guess with more and more of these attacks coming it will be harder and harder to deny their existence or claim that the victims attacked themselves. Hobartimus ( talk) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Not that these kinds of things don't happen elsewhere, but if you want examples:
Why is this relevant here? Because most of these articles discover some kind of connection between the radical right wing party being in the government and the spread of radical right wing violence in Slovakia. They also talk about the Slovak police not doing much to capture the attackers. Squash Racket ( talk) 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The current name of the article is a Hungarian translation of the real name
Hedviga Malinová. The name Malina is used in Hungarian media only, including English translations ((e.g.:
Magyar Nemzet, Budapest and
Hungarian News Agency). Moreover, the current article was vandalized by editors removing tags without explanation.
The page should redirect to the real article so it can be nominated for deletion as non-notable without problems of inaccuracy.--
Svetovid (
talk)
14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: for a real request please follow official WP process. Squash Racket ( talk) 13:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: This is just the request to share your opinions. I apologize to user Squash Racket if I made him think, it is something else. 147.175.98.213 ( talk) 14:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's start a pro-contra discussion. Feel free to add comments and new points between my lines. 147.175.98.213 ( talk) 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- it is her official name, written in her documents like ID card, passport, state registry.
- the official representatives of Magyars in Slovakia, the Party of the Hungarian Coalition(SMK-MKP), are using this name ( [5])
- it is the magyar equivalent of the name and she is of Hungarian ethnicity
First question, should conspiracy theories be added at all, if so maybe to a separate section not to mix facts with nonsense? Secondly the one added by the IP reads badly in English and it's not really clear what is the theory there (who committed the attack according that theory). So the main question is should conspiracy theories be added as one was added by an IP belonging to Slovak Technical University. Hobartimus ( talk) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems like at least one other user ( User:Squash Racket) de facto agrees with the add, as he is further expanding it: [7]. 147.175.98.213 ( talk) 19:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't delete references that support statements in the article. If you have new, better references, add them, without removing the existing ones. Thank you. Squash Racket ( talk) 13:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
In October, 2007 Tom Lantos, Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives asked the Prime Minister of Slovakia to distance themselves from the Benes decrees, a reasonable process in the Hedvig Malina case, and to treat members of the Hungarian minority as equal [1]
The article is much more readable now, but the overall structure is still rather bad.
For example, the paragraph "Malinová also got into the centre of several conspiracy theories, which relate the case to the Slovak authorities or nationalists.." obviously does not belong to Perjury claims. And Perjury claims seem to belong under the 'Allegations of injustice' anyway.--
Svetovid (
talk)
13:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Recently the following text was added about Tom Lantos "...blamed the Slovak government for creating the climate for anti-Hungarian sentiments." [12] [2] However after checking the reference I found that the reference says something slightly different, in a direct quote "responsibility for the climate rests with the prime minister of Slovakia, who included voluntarily in his coalition individuals with known ultra-nationalist, anti-Hungarian attitudes" The blame "for the climate" is specific to Prime Minister Fico which is reinforced again later in another direct quote "The inclusion of Hungary-hating political leaders and extreme nationalists in (Fico's) coalition Cabinet was his decision ... and if you make your bed, you sleep in it." So the creation of the climate is definitely Fico's doing (according to Lantos), the blame is not placed on the whole government, but Fico alone. However the journalists interpreted the whole interview as "U.S. lawmaker blames Slovak government for ethnically motivated attacks on Hungarians" so what the whole government is responsible for is the "ethnically motivated attacks on Hungarians" but that is only the interpretation of the newspaper, so the current text as in the article slightly misquotes the reference, I think in this case we have a good direct qoute which at least partly should be preserved if we talk about the climate. Any thoughts? Hobartimus ( talk) 14:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is listed in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Although I have no strong feelings about this case, I support the move from "Hedvig Malina" to "Hedviga Malinová". "Hedviga Malinová" is the name used in English sources, it appears in the legal documents about the case and even ethnic Hungarian politicians from Slovakia and Malinová's lawyer use this form. "Hedvig Malina" appears only in Hungarian sources. Also please note that according to the Slovak law, she could use the Hungarian version of her name "Hedvig Malina" if she wanted. She does not. This is only my view, but I invite both sides involved in the recent edit war over her name to state their arguments and provide evidence for their claims here. Tankred ( talk) 14:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
English language sources use the Hungarian name, so there is no concensus about the move. Squash Racket ( talk) 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Le Petit Journal is a
French language source, not English. The other sources you mention are Slovak/Czech sources, so the bias is obvious. Hobartimus meant that it was in the
Western name order (Hedvig Malina) not the Eastern (Malina Hedvig), so you can find only in English sources the present version of the name. Please try to understand his explanation first.
Most English language Slovak sources sometimes mention the name with an accent, sometimes not anyway. The Hungarian name has one version in English language sources.
Squash Racket (
talk)
12:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've copied the discussion below (between the lines) from WP:RM, where it had taken place under a move request listing. That page is not the place for that discussion, so I've moved it here. -
GTBacchus(
talk)
00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The agreement I'm aware of is that we use the formatting most commonly used in English language sources. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I should peobably clarify that I don't prefer the "Malinova" spelling one bit. I actually don't care at all; I'm just trying to help close the request, and I thank you for showing that the evidence is more mixed than I was at first seeing. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Tom Lantos was
Jewish who had been saved by Raoul Wallenberg so I wouldn't accuse him of too much bias towards Hungarians.
He wrote the open letter as a member of the Congress of the United States to the Prime Minister of Slovakia, not to Hungarians. This is the most credible English language source that we have.
Hedvig Malina herself didn't use the
Slovakized form of her name in
an interview you can view in this video library, so I would say she and her family uses
Hedvig Malina when there is no pressure from Slovak authorities. Do you understand now?
Squash Racket (
talk)
14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there is still no consensus to a page move, I'm unlisting it from WP:RM. If a reasonable discussion occurs where a decision to move is made, please feel free to re-list. Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 02:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Problems with this major edit:
Graphology specialists (without asking Malina for sample) assumed that the offensive writings on her clothes were actually done by herself. [3]
Graphology specialists claimed that the offensive writings on her clothes might have been written by her.
The next month Ján Packa, head of the police, contrary to his claims he made some 11 months before, admitted that "Malina might have been beaten". He now said: "we never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states."
In July 2007, Ján Packa admitted that "Malinová might have been beaten." He now said: "We never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states."
Meanwhile a former high-ranking police commissioner reported Robert Fico, Robert Kalinák and Ján Packa to the authorities, claiming they abused their power in connection with Malina's case.
In October, 2007 Tom Lantos, Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives asked the Prime Minister of Slovakia to distance themselves from the Benes decrees, a reasonable process in the Hedvig Malina case, and to treat members of the Hungarian minority as equal [4]
In December 2007 (15 months after the beating) the Slovak police gave the video cassettes about the initial hearing of Hedvig to Roman Kvasnica, her lawyer. It turned out the police broke the law several times. They forgot to mention three police officers were also in the room throughout the hearing. [5] The investigators stopped the recording sometimes. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it, released now only three hours of that recording [6]. The police still doesn't search the ones who committed the hate crime, only checks the credibility of the girl. Despite the police's early claims not one, but two cameras were used for the recording [7]. Hedvig is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison.
In December 2007, the Slovak police gave the video recording of the initial hearing of Malinová to Roman Kvasnica, her latest lawyer. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it and released only three hours initially. [8] Despite the police's early claims, two cameras were used instead of one for the recording. [9] Malinová is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison.
Would you explain? Squash Racket ( talk) 12:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Graphology specialists (without asking Malina for sample) assumed that the offensive writings on her clothes were actually done by herself. [10]
Graphology specialists claimed that the offensive writings on her clothes might have been written by her.
The next month Ján Packa, head of the police, contrary to his claims he made some 11 months before, admitted that "Malina might have been beaten". He now said: "we never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states."
In July 2007, Ján Packa admitted that "Malinová might have been beaten." He now said: "We never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states."
Meanwhile a former high-ranking police commissioner reported Robert Fico, Robert Kalinák and Ján Packa to the authorities, claiming they abused their power in connection with Malina's case.
In October, 2007 Tom Lantos, Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives asked the Prime Minister of Slovakia to distance themselves from the Benes decrees, a reasonable process in the Hedvig Malina case, and to treat members of the Hungarian minority as equal [11]
In December 2007 (15 months after the beating) the Slovak police gave the video cassettes about the initial hearing of Hedvig to Roman Kvasnica, her lawyer. It turned out the police broke the law several times. They forgot to mention three police officers were also in the room throughout the hearing. [12] The investigators stopped the recording sometimes. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it, released now only three hours of that recording [13]. The police still doesn't search the ones who committed the hate crime, only checks the credibility of the girl. Despite the police's early claims not one, but two cameras were used for the recording [14]. Hedvig is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison.
In December 2007, the Slovak police gave the video recording of the initial hearing of Malinová to Roman Kvasnica, her latest lawyer. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it and released only three hours initially. [15] Despite the police's early claims, two cameras were used instead of one for the recording. [16] Malinová is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison.
Graphology specialists (without asking Malina for sample) assumed that the offensive writings on her clothes were actually done by herself. [17]
Graphology specialists claimed that the offensive writings on her clothes might have been written by her.
The next month Ján Packa, head of the police, contrary to his claims he made some 11 months before, admitted that "Malina might have been beaten". He now said: "we never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states."
In July 2007, Ján Packa admitted that "Malinová might have been beaten." He now said: "We never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states."
Meanwhile a former high-ranking police commissioner reported Robert Fico, Robert Kalinák and Ján Packa to the authorities, claiming they abused their power in connection with Malina's case.
In October, 2007 Tom Lantos, Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives asked the Prime Minister of Slovakia to distance themselves from the Benes decrees, a reasonable process in the Hedvig Malina case, and to treat members of the Hungarian minority as equal [19]
In December 2007 (15 months after the beating) the Slovak police gave the video cassettes about the initial hearing of Hedvig to Roman Kvasnica, her lawyer. It turned out the police broke the law several times. They forgot to mention three police officers were also in the room throughout the hearing. [20] The investigators stopped the recording sometimes. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it, released now only three hours of that recording [21]. The police still doesn't search the ones who committed the hate crime, only checks the credibility of the girl. Despite the police's early claims not one, but two cameras were used for the recording [22]. Hedvig is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison.
In December 2007, the Slovak police gave the video recording of the initial hearing of Malinová to Roman Kvasnica, her latest lawyer. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it and released only three hours initially. [23] Despite the police's early claims, two cameras were used instead of one for the recording. [24] Malinová is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison.
Your two reactions on my question about your preferring Slovak sources to Hungarian ones:
Reference says: "All political parties distanced themselves from the beating, except for the Slovak National Party lead by Jan Slota". I deleted "notable" and the vague template.
might have been written is not most probably. They did not ask Malina for sample, they used an application for a passport from eight years before that is not sure was written by her. I also added this based on the reference. You removed it.
The police examination concluded that. If another reference says something else, you may add it, not delete reliable references.
There is no reference given for every single sentence. We wait a bit, the fact tag highlights the issue.
I checked the source after the first sentence containing that name and it didn't mention it. You know how the wrong name got into the article?
These issues are not vague as the weather, but are closely related, you still don't understand that.
Squash Racket (
talk)
14:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't make changes to the structure of the article without using the talk page. The article loses its transparency and it becomes difficult to clearly see which edits were constructive and which ones were not. Squash Racket ( talk) 06:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If there any facts backed up by reliable evidence that you claim I've removed, list it here with reliable sources.
As usual, stop assuming ownership and act like you decide what is going into the article and who can edit it.
Also, explain to us how, by any stretch of imagination, can this article belong under the category Political prisoners and victims without POV pushing.--
Svetovid (
talk)
11:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"Malinová married in February 2008 and changed her surname to Žáková after her Slovak husband Peter Žák. As of February 2008, she is in her fourth month of pregnancy. [31]"-- Svetovid ( talk) 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason: "You are quite right that those who have reverted you seemed to be objecting to only one part of your change. But on the other hand, you kept reverting THAT change too, even when multiple other users have reverted you. This is considered edit warring and is harmful to the editing process, which is why you've been blocked. Like it or not, the way out of this is discussion. If you feel that things are deadlocked now, there are further steps you can pursue in dispute resolution, but simply making your own preferred change over and over solves nothing and simply makes things worse. Mangojuicetalk 15:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The lead is for describing this hate crime, not for writing about her private life nowadays. At the time of the incident she was not married. Despite your claims in the past I was also open to renaming about the case for example when you nominated the article for deletion. Read my comment there, I even suggested moving the article to Hedvig Malina case, only expressed my concerns because of the article Rodney King. Above an uninvolved editor suggested 2006 Nitra beating incident, I said it would be acceptable and an administrator asked if it was OK with everyone. Squash Racket ( talk) 15:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[27]? I mean after repeatedly putting a "refimprove" tag on the article and complaining about not enough English language sources, he simply deleted this reference... Squash Racket ( talk) 05:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I know parts of this were discussed many times here, but I couldn't find a topic discussing article future as whole. In current state article is definitely POVish. For example you just cannot state she was attacked because she said so. There are many uncertainties surrounding the case so we must use direct accusations with caution (in current state, article denies officially released statements (by police/justice) based on Hungarian press - which is definitely not not neutral). I'm not telling Slovakia's officials are right or wrong I'm just telling there's no certainty here. (I don't want to list all the stuff I don't like but I would like to reach some consensus about article revision which is acceptable for all to continue the work).
I don't know the history of this article I see the version [28] by 78.98.139.193 is definitely more neutral than current one. In my option we should start working on that revision. I don't want to "just revert" it because there's no point in "fueling the war" but I hope we are all trying to be constructive so we can reach conclusion. Wikipedia is not a place to solve personal/nationalistic/... issues. Miko3k ( talk) 22:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Answering Svetovid's new comments:
Squash Racket ( talk) 08:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There was a civil discussion going on when someone
jumped in to comment on contributors instead of content. My name was mentioned too, so I decided to look into those statements, that's all. Next time deal only with the article and its issues, references, and I won't have to provide diffs to clear up false statements, personal attacks etc.
Squash Racket (
talk)
06:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
One more thing: I suggested
mediation, not calling an administrator, because handling content disputes is clearly not their job, but as you wish.
Squash Racket (
talk)
06:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Although this article pretends to be biography ( WP:Biography), it is only the description of a single event ( WP:BIO1E). Additionaly, it probably violates WP:NOT#NEWS. I request to move this article to the event description or to move it to Wikinews, until the cause is closed and resolved by police and courts. 147.175.98.213 ( talk) 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Another attack happened, this time in Besztercebánya. Source. [1] I guess with more and more of these attacks coming it will be harder and harder to deny their existence or claim that the victims attacked themselves. Hobartimus ( talk) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Not that these kinds of things don't happen elsewhere, but if you want examples:
Why is this relevant here? Because most of these articles discover some kind of connection between the radical right wing party being in the government and the spread of radical right wing violence in Slovakia. They also talk about the Slovak police not doing much to capture the attackers. Squash Racket ( talk) 05:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
The current name of the article is a Hungarian translation of the real name
Hedviga Malinová. The name Malina is used in Hungarian media only, including English translations ((e.g.:
Magyar Nemzet, Budapest and
Hungarian News Agency). Moreover, the current article was vandalized by editors removing tags without explanation.
The page should redirect to the real article so it can be nominated for deletion as non-notable without problems of inaccuracy.--
Svetovid (
talk)
14:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: for a real request please follow official WP process. Squash Racket ( talk) 13:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
NOTE: This is just the request to share your opinions. I apologize to user Squash Racket if I made him think, it is something else. 147.175.98.213 ( talk) 14:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, let's start a pro-contra discussion. Feel free to add comments and new points between my lines. 147.175.98.213 ( talk) 12:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
- it is her official name, written in her documents like ID card, passport, state registry.
- the official representatives of Magyars in Slovakia, the Party of the Hungarian Coalition(SMK-MKP), are using this name ( [5])
- it is the magyar equivalent of the name and she is of Hungarian ethnicity
First question, should conspiracy theories be added at all, if so maybe to a separate section not to mix facts with nonsense? Secondly the one added by the IP reads badly in English and it's not really clear what is the theory there (who committed the attack according that theory). So the main question is should conspiracy theories be added as one was added by an IP belonging to Slovak Technical University. Hobartimus ( talk) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems like at least one other user ( User:Squash Racket) de facto agrees with the add, as he is further expanding it: [7]. 147.175.98.213 ( talk) 19:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't delete references that support statements in the article. If you have new, better references, add them, without removing the existing ones. Thank you. Squash Racket ( talk) 13:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
In October, 2007 Tom Lantos, Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives asked the Prime Minister of Slovakia to distance themselves from the Benes decrees, a reasonable process in the Hedvig Malina case, and to treat members of the Hungarian minority as equal [1]
The article is much more readable now, but the overall structure is still rather bad.
For example, the paragraph "Malinová also got into the centre of several conspiracy theories, which relate the case to the Slovak authorities or nationalists.." obviously does not belong to Perjury claims. And Perjury claims seem to belong under the 'Allegations of injustice' anyway.--
Svetovid (
talk)
13:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Recently the following text was added about Tom Lantos "...blamed the Slovak government for creating the climate for anti-Hungarian sentiments." [12] [2] However after checking the reference I found that the reference says something slightly different, in a direct quote "responsibility for the climate rests with the prime minister of Slovakia, who included voluntarily in his coalition individuals with known ultra-nationalist, anti-Hungarian attitudes" The blame "for the climate" is specific to Prime Minister Fico which is reinforced again later in another direct quote "The inclusion of Hungary-hating political leaders and extreme nationalists in (Fico's) coalition Cabinet was his decision ... and if you make your bed, you sleep in it." So the creation of the climate is definitely Fico's doing (according to Lantos), the blame is not placed on the whole government, but Fico alone. However the journalists interpreted the whole interview as "U.S. lawmaker blames Slovak government for ethnically motivated attacks on Hungarians" so what the whole government is responsible for is the "ethnically motivated attacks on Hungarians" but that is only the interpretation of the newspaper, so the current text as in the article slightly misquotes the reference, I think in this case we have a good direct qoute which at least partly should be preserved if we talk about the climate. Any thoughts? Hobartimus ( talk) 14:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is listed in Wikipedia:Requested moves. Although I have no strong feelings about this case, I support the move from "Hedvig Malina" to "Hedviga Malinová". "Hedviga Malinová" is the name used in English sources, it appears in the legal documents about the case and even ethnic Hungarian politicians from Slovakia and Malinová's lawyer use this form. "Hedvig Malina" appears only in Hungarian sources. Also please note that according to the Slovak law, she could use the Hungarian version of her name "Hedvig Malina" if she wanted. She does not. This is only my view, but I invite both sides involved in the recent edit war over her name to state their arguments and provide evidence for their claims here. Tankred ( talk) 14:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
English language sources use the Hungarian name, so there is no concensus about the move. Squash Racket ( talk) 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Le Petit Journal is a
French language source, not English. The other sources you mention are Slovak/Czech sources, so the bias is obvious. Hobartimus meant that it was in the
Western name order (Hedvig Malina) not the Eastern (Malina Hedvig), so you can find only in English sources the present version of the name. Please try to understand his explanation first.
Most English language Slovak sources sometimes mention the name with an accent, sometimes not anyway. The Hungarian name has one version in English language sources.
Squash Racket (
talk)
12:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I've copied the discussion below (between the lines) from WP:RM, where it had taken place under a move request listing. That page is not the place for that discussion, so I've moved it here. -
GTBacchus(
talk)
00:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
The agreement I'm aware of is that we use the formatting most commonly used in English language sources. - GTBacchus( talk) 22:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I should peobably clarify that I don't prefer the "Malinova" spelling one bit. I actually don't care at all; I'm just trying to help close the request, and I thank you for showing that the evidence is more mixed than I was at first seeing. - GTBacchus( talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Tom Lantos was
Jewish who had been saved by Raoul Wallenberg so I wouldn't accuse him of too much bias towards Hungarians.
He wrote the open letter as a member of the Congress of the United States to the Prime Minister of Slovakia, not to Hungarians. This is the most credible English language source that we have.
Hedvig Malina herself didn't use the
Slovakized form of her name in
an interview you can view in this video library, so I would say she and her family uses
Hedvig Malina when there is no pressure from Slovak authorities. Do you understand now?
Squash Racket (
talk)
14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Since there is still no consensus to a page move, I'm unlisting it from WP:RM. If a reasonable discussion occurs where a decision to move is made, please feel free to re-list. Thanks! -- SatyrTN ( talk / contribs) 02:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Problems with this major edit:
Graphology specialists (without asking Malina for sample) assumed that the offensive writings on her clothes were actually done by herself. [3]
Graphology specialists claimed that the offensive writings on her clothes might have been written by her.
The next month Ján Packa, head of the police, contrary to his claims he made some 11 months before, admitted that "Malina might have been beaten". He now said: "we never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states."
In July 2007, Ján Packa admitted that "Malinová might have been beaten." He now said: "We never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states."
Meanwhile a former high-ranking police commissioner reported Robert Fico, Robert Kalinák and Ján Packa to the authorities, claiming they abused their power in connection with Malina's case.
In October, 2007 Tom Lantos, Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives asked the Prime Minister of Slovakia to distance themselves from the Benes decrees, a reasonable process in the Hedvig Malina case, and to treat members of the Hungarian minority as equal [4]
In December 2007 (15 months after the beating) the Slovak police gave the video cassettes about the initial hearing of Hedvig to Roman Kvasnica, her lawyer. It turned out the police broke the law several times. They forgot to mention three police officers were also in the room throughout the hearing. [5] The investigators stopped the recording sometimes. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it, released now only three hours of that recording [6]. The police still doesn't search the ones who committed the hate crime, only checks the credibility of the girl. Despite the police's early claims not one, but two cameras were used for the recording [7]. Hedvig is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison.
In December 2007, the Slovak police gave the video recording of the initial hearing of Malinová to Roman Kvasnica, her latest lawyer. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it and released only three hours initially. [8] Despite the police's early claims, two cameras were used instead of one for the recording. [9] Malinová is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison.
Would you explain? Squash Racket ( talk) 12:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Graphology specialists (without asking Malina for sample) assumed that the offensive writings on her clothes were actually done by herself. [10]
Graphology specialists claimed that the offensive writings on her clothes might have been written by her.
The next month Ján Packa, head of the police, contrary to his claims he made some 11 months before, admitted that "Malina might have been beaten". He now said: "we never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states."
In July 2007, Ján Packa admitted that "Malinová might have been beaten." He now said: "We never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states."
Meanwhile a former high-ranking police commissioner reported Robert Fico, Robert Kalinák and Ján Packa to the authorities, claiming they abused their power in connection with Malina's case.
In October, 2007 Tom Lantos, Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives asked the Prime Minister of Slovakia to distance themselves from the Benes decrees, a reasonable process in the Hedvig Malina case, and to treat members of the Hungarian minority as equal [11]
In December 2007 (15 months after the beating) the Slovak police gave the video cassettes about the initial hearing of Hedvig to Roman Kvasnica, her lawyer. It turned out the police broke the law several times. They forgot to mention three police officers were also in the room throughout the hearing. [12] The investigators stopped the recording sometimes. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it, released now only three hours of that recording [13]. The police still doesn't search the ones who committed the hate crime, only checks the credibility of the girl. Despite the police's early claims not one, but two cameras were used for the recording [14]. Hedvig is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison.
In December 2007, the Slovak police gave the video recording of the initial hearing of Malinová to Roman Kvasnica, her latest lawyer. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it and released only three hours initially. [15] Despite the police's early claims, two cameras were used instead of one for the recording. [16] Malinová is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison.
Graphology specialists (without asking Malina for sample) assumed that the offensive writings on her clothes were actually done by herself. [17]
Graphology specialists claimed that the offensive writings on her clothes might have been written by her.
The next month Ján Packa, head of the police, contrary to his claims he made some 11 months before, admitted that "Malina might have been beaten". He now said: "we never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states."
In July 2007, Ján Packa admitted that "Malinová might have been beaten." He now said: "We never claimed she was not beaten. We claimed it did not happen the way she states."
Meanwhile a former high-ranking police commissioner reported Robert Fico, Robert Kalinák and Ján Packa to the authorities, claiming they abused their power in connection with Malina's case.
In October, 2007 Tom Lantos, Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives asked the Prime Minister of Slovakia to distance themselves from the Benes decrees, a reasonable process in the Hedvig Malina case, and to treat members of the Hungarian minority as equal [19]
In December 2007 (15 months after the beating) the Slovak police gave the video cassettes about the initial hearing of Hedvig to Roman Kvasnica, her lawyer. It turned out the police broke the law several times. They forgot to mention three police officers were also in the room throughout the hearing. [20] The investigators stopped the recording sometimes. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it, released now only three hours of that recording [21]. The police still doesn't search the ones who committed the hate crime, only checks the credibility of the girl. Despite the police's early claims not one, but two cameras were used for the recording [22]. Hedvig is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison.
In December 2007, the Slovak police gave the video recording of the initial hearing of Malinová to Roman Kvasnica, her latest lawyer. The hearing lasted for six hours, but the police recorded only five hours of it and released only three hours initially. [23] Despite the police's early claims, two cameras were used instead of one for the recording. [24] Malinová is still accused of misleading the authority for which she may be sentenced to five years in prison.
Your two reactions on my question about your preferring Slovak sources to Hungarian ones:
Reference says: "All political parties distanced themselves from the beating, except for the Slovak National Party lead by Jan Slota". I deleted "notable" and the vague template.
might have been written is not most probably. They did not ask Malina for sample, they used an application for a passport from eight years before that is not sure was written by her. I also added this based on the reference. You removed it.
The police examination concluded that. If another reference says something else, you may add it, not delete reliable references.
There is no reference given for every single sentence. We wait a bit, the fact tag highlights the issue.
I checked the source after the first sentence containing that name and it didn't mention it. You know how the wrong name got into the article?
These issues are not vague as the weather, but are closely related, you still don't understand that.
Squash Racket (
talk)
14:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please don't make changes to the structure of the article without using the talk page. The article loses its transparency and it becomes difficult to clearly see which edits were constructive and which ones were not. Squash Racket ( talk) 06:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If there any facts backed up by reliable evidence that you claim I've removed, list it here with reliable sources.
As usual, stop assuming ownership and act like you decide what is going into the article and who can edit it.
Also, explain to us how, by any stretch of imagination, can this article belong under the category Political prisoners and victims without POV pushing.--
Svetovid (
talk)
11:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"Malinová married in February 2008 and changed her surname to Žáková after her Slovak husband Peter Žák. As of February 2008, she is in her fourth month of pregnancy. [31]"-- Svetovid ( talk) 18:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason: "You are quite right that those who have reverted you seemed to be objecting to only one part of your change. But on the other hand, you kept reverting THAT change too, even when multiple other users have reverted you. This is considered edit warring and is harmful to the editing process, which is why you've been blocked. Like it or not, the way out of this is discussion. If you feel that things are deadlocked now, there are further steps you can pursue in dispute resolution, but simply making your own preferred change over and over solves nothing and simply makes things worse. Mangojuicetalk 15:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The lead is for describing this hate crime, not for writing about her private life nowadays. At the time of the incident she was not married. Despite your claims in the past I was also open to renaming about the case for example when you nominated the article for deletion. Read my comment there, I even suggested moving the article to Hedvig Malina case, only expressed my concerns because of the article Rodney King. Above an uninvolved editor suggested 2006 Nitra beating incident, I said it would be acceptable and an administrator asked if it was OK with everyone. Squash Racket ( talk) 15:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[27]? I mean after repeatedly putting a "refimprove" tag on the article and complaining about not enough English language sources, he simply deleted this reference... Squash Racket ( talk) 05:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I know parts of this were discussed many times here, but I couldn't find a topic discussing article future as whole. In current state article is definitely POVish. For example you just cannot state she was attacked because she said so. There are many uncertainties surrounding the case so we must use direct accusations with caution (in current state, article denies officially released statements (by police/justice) based on Hungarian press - which is definitely not not neutral). I'm not telling Slovakia's officials are right or wrong I'm just telling there's no certainty here. (I don't want to list all the stuff I don't like but I would like to reach some consensus about article revision which is acceptable for all to continue the work).
I don't know the history of this article I see the version [28] by 78.98.139.193 is definitely more neutral than current one. In my option we should start working on that revision. I don't want to "just revert" it because there's no point in "fueling the war" but I hope we are all trying to be constructive so we can reach conclusion. Wikipedia is not a place to solve personal/nationalistic/... issues. Miko3k ( talk) 22:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Answering Svetovid's new comments:
Squash Racket ( talk) 08:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There was a civil discussion going on when someone
jumped in to comment on contributors instead of content. My name was mentioned too, so I decided to look into those statements, that's all. Next time deal only with the article and its issues, references, and I won't have to provide diffs to clear up false statements, personal attacks etc.
Squash Racket (
talk)
06:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
One more thing: I suggested
mediation, not calling an administrator, because handling content disputes is clearly not their job, but as you wish.
Squash Racket (
talk)
06:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help); Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |accessmonthday=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |accessyear=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)