 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What reasons were there to use this tag?-- Svetovid ( talk) 17:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- The editor who placed the tag, Nmate ( talk · contribs) is currently blocked, so you may wish to ask on his/her talkpage. If there is no reasonable reply within a couple days, go ahead and remove the tag. -- El on ka 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I am copying the comments from Nmate, in case anyone would like to respond:
Because this is an Hungarian - Slovak common topic, but does not imply the Hungarian point of view at all. Nmate
1,The article does not deal with the antecedents of the contract.
2,Slovakia hurt Hungary's territorial integrity because diverted the boundary river to their own area.(Danube river more serious river than Wisła river because I saw the Wisła river in Warszawa.)
3,The article does not deal with the environment protection aspect at all. Nmate
I have also removed the "cleanup" template and replaced it with {{ npov}}. El on ka 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I also copy my comments made just after Elonka's copying here:
- Let me disagree with you on points 2 and 3.
- The mere fact of large amount of water divertion had no effect on territorial integrity of Hungary. The border has not changed at all, it is still old stream filled with water, albeit with less water. This was a matter of dispute before court as far as I know. On what do you base your claim?
- Article deals with ecology aspect in sentences "The argument against the dam was danger to the environment and to the water supply of Budapest." and "The threat of ecological catastrophe didn't materialize during the following years; on the contrary, the Danube floodplains surrounding the area have been saved from draining observed in the past." Of course, this is unsourced, but your claim of article not dealing with this is not true. Expansion of this would be surely helpful, I would even say that enviromental aspect would be worthy of own section later, after expansion of article.
- On general, however, I would not say the article is "poorly" written. Incomplete - why not, there are many facts missing there. --Ruziklan (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel an NPOV tag isn't justified enough so I removed it. Probably the article could use some expansion, but that's not equal to POV, or? 81.152.74.148 ( talk) 12:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"The article does not deal with the antecedents of the contract." That's not a POV issue. It needs expansion.
"Slovakia hurt Hungary's territorial integrity because diverted the boundary river to their own area." Personal opinion, AKA
original research.
"The article does not deal with the environment protection aspect at all." Again, that's not a POV issue. Actually, the article touches that with: "The threat of ecological catastrophe didn't materialize during the following years; on the contrary, the Danube floodplains surrounding the area have been saved from draining observed in the past." This statement needs citation, but it's not a POV issue unless someone has a reliable source that doubts this.--
Svetovid (
talk) 18:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So are there actually any POV issues or can the tag be removed?-- Svetovid ( talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The Hungarian side of the story is clearly missing here. While the role of the environmentalist movement and particularly the role of Danube Circle was briefly mentioned, but the article did not realize their significance. I wish I had some time to write about the political background that still ties the hands of every Hungarian governments to seek any sort of compromise. Bmfekete ( talk) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The article should be split into two articles. One would be Gabčíkovo - Nagymaros project dealing with the initial project and the case in the International Court of Justice and the other would be Gabčíkovo Dam about the realized dam with two levels: Gabčíkovo and Čunovo.-- Svetovid ( talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don´t find it needed, because there is not so much information in this article yet.-- Michalides ( talk) 20:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to rename the article on Gabčíkovo Dams, because there is no "Nagymaros". Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros project is just a part of it´s history.-- Michalides ( talk) 20:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would not do that for one year by 2011. User:Izomtibor 16:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I am affraid that you do not understand the substance of this topic. Slovakia one-sided diverted the Danube river to their own area. Do you know what it means? Hungary's territorical integrity is hurting. After these it is strange if this text says about the environmental advantages. I know it well. It is more better if a country has both banks of a river-- Nmate ( talk) 08:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The environmental impacts in Slovakia are based on researches of Water Research Institute, which is doing a measure not only on water, but also on surrounding forest´s fauna and flora in Slovakia side - annualy, or every couple of years. The results are very minutely being described on the same slovak page I introduced and are judged as possitive. If you know about impacts on nature on the hungarian side, write it. The integrity was also discussed here, border is still the same on the old Danube stream, only with less water. The international court arbitrated like this, too. You have to realize, that there was no better choice for Slovakia, how to finnish the project wihtout going on hungarian territory.--
Michalides (
talk) 08:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I understand what you say but it is disputed.Obviously you won't agree with me
- and i won't agree with you. So this "Disputed tag" stays up on top of this article. --
Nmate (
talk) 09:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, as you want to. I know it´s written from slovak point of view, but there is nothing, what wouldnt be true. I hoped we will rebuild the article so the tag won´t need to be there.
- I filled a link about impacts in, if you scroll down on the page, you can read about it in english for every year since 1999. And you can find it also to be a hungarian statement. So you can verify this environmental impacts.-- Michalides ( talk) 09:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Can anyone please take care of the "Environmental consequences" part? This is ridiculous from an environmental point of view and sounds more like propaganda from enthusiasts. 10:30, 01 September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.155.224 ( talk)
- Hi. The part is too short and thats why it deals only with global consequences and there are missing some local environmental negatives. They have been evinced expecially during the construction (like trees, which had to be cut down for example), or some smaller areas, which were drying up gradually and it had to be fixed by planting poplars. In contrary, there are many environmental possitives comming up from measures of several disciplines and conditions are far away form predicted "ecological catastrophe". I will try to fill in more informations, but in global, environmental conditons are unequivocally judged as possitive.-- Michalides ( talk) 13:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I have read differently that there really has been environmental problems in Hungary from this dam. The water table down river from the dam has dropped and the population of fish on that section of the floodplain have decreased with mean annual fish catches are down 87 percent. MontanaWind ( talk) 04:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
this article is like it was written by meciar or slota themselves. michalides, svetovid and ruziklan are all slovaks and they keep every non-slovak interpretation of the case swept off the table.
the treaty that defines the border says the border is the middle of the shipping channel of the danube. since they altered the shipping channel the border was 'de jure' moved. this isnt a personal opinion, this is an official Hungarian claim.
to editor ruziklan - your surname is Hungarian yet u dont speak Hungarian and are one big-time slovak nationalist. funny but in a shameful way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.82.97 ( talk) 11:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this source in English [1] is a good summary about environmental issues. Fakirbakir ( talk) 14:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. It looks good, the main question is whether this PDF can be accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. If yes, would you consider updating the article?
KœrteFa
{ταλκ} 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think so, the study is from experts. See the full version of that:
[2]
Fakirbakir (
talk) 08:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want seem like the
Devil's advocate, but "written by experts" may not be enough (even though this looks impressive). Was it published? Normally, PDFs from websites are not accepted as reliable sources (I can write anything in a PDF and upload it somewhere). Is the website reliable?
KœrteFa
{ταλκ} 10:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- The website "www.bosnagymaros.hu" was part of the websites of the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water. This administrative unit ceased to exist in 2010. Now, the environmental topics, tasks belong to the "Ministry of Rural Development" (and its new page is kormany.hu). Fakirbakir ( talk) 14:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want seem like the
Devil's advocate, but "written by experts" may not be enough (even though this looks impressive). Was it published? Normally, PDFs from websites are not accepted as reliable sources (I can write anything in a PDF and upload it somewhere). Is the website reliable?
KœrteFa
{ταλκ} 10:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think so, the study is from experts. See the full version of that:
[2]
Fakirbakir (
talk) 08:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
""Stabilization of the bottom and stream of the Danube."" ---Sorry, but this is so stupid. There is practically no water in the old Danube bed. (see, for example, [3] p. 190 "....(in) the Old Danube bed, where the the total losses (fish biomass) in all parameters exceed to 95%"). Fakirbakir ( talk) 09:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Now the Old Danube gets only 400 m3/s water however the water output used to be 2000 m3/s (average). I remember when people could take a walk in the river bed (Old Danube), because that was dry as a desert (in 1998 if I am right). Anyway I inserted some data about environmental issues into the article, because that statement above is not true. Fakirbakir ( talk) 02:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Dear user Petrinec1, I still maintain that
http://www.gabcikovo.gov.sk is not a reliable source. We need neutral independent sources.
Fakirbakir (
talk) 09:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes,
http://www.gabcikovo.gov.sk is a self-published source, which is not acceptable here. Also, where does this source
[4] state that the Dam resulted in "Improved living conditions of aquatic animals and forest animals in areas around old Danube"?
KœrteFa
{ταλκ} 07:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific on what asumption it is "self-published source"? 1) As far i know page is owned by government (you could check with domaintools, UVSR - Urad Vlady SR) 2) Annual report is manuscript (without ISBN) and is only available on web (gabcikovo page) or in paper form at slovakian Enviro ministry... 3) you have there reports from '99 until now, which seems to me as quite reliable source as its published by both authors (svk/hun) 4) gabcikovo page is used on Hunagrian&Slovak wiki without problems
ad conditions - seems i put there wrong citation, worked with too many at the time i wrote it, allthough without floods, forest animals are not endangered anymore by spring/summer floods (2013 flood reached 8m+ in old Danube before station got flooded) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrinec1 ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific on what asumption it is "self-published source"? 1) As far i know page is owned by government (you could check with domaintools, UVSR - Urad Vlady SR) 2) Annual report is manuscript (without ISBN) and is only available on web (gabcikovo page) or in paper form at slovakian Enviro ministry... 3) you have there reports from '99 until now, which seems to me as quite reliable source as its published by both authors (svk/hun) 4) gabcikovo page is used on Hunagrian&Slovak wiki without problems
- Yes,
http://www.gabcikovo.gov.sk is a self-published source, which is not acceptable here. Also, where does this source
[4] state that the Dam resulted in "Improved living conditions of aquatic animals and forest animals in areas around old Danube"?
KœrteFa
{ταλκ} 07:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The switchyard of the power station is disguised on Google Maps
This is probably not true anymore. See this photo taken in 2009: http://www.google.sk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fimg3.rajce.idnes.cz%2Fd0303%2F3%2F3925%2F3925496_9163d58c5dd49cbad08bc1ef94fc7d98%2Fimages%2F067_Gabcikovo.JPG&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fkucajirka.rajce.idnes.cz%2FGabcikovo_letecky_2009%2F&h=901&w=1200&tbnid=cTKgwAbGdFSiYM%3A&zoom=1&docid=EMjisSa7g5ZWVM&ei=L4hdU63WBoSfO-CRgQg&tbm=isch&ved=0CJoBEDMoPDA8&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=357&page=2&start=35&ndsp=35
And the corresponding google maps section: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=dobrohost&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=47.883524,17.541191&spn=0.003274,0.007907&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=62.186014,129.550781&t=h&hnear=Dobroho%C5%A1%C5%A5,+Slovakia&z=18
The image is not sharp, but everything is visible. It is also not a problem to walk around the complex pretty close to the buildings, so i see no reason why it should be hidden on google images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.1.50 ( talk) 23:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Dams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130142121/http://rightlivelihood.org/duna-kor.html to http://www.rightlivelihood.org/duna-kor.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gabcikovo.gov.sk/doc/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Marked it as NPOV as it reflects only the Slovak aspect of the topic: - with possible factual errors (Hague lawsuit resolution) - missing some important points of environmental aspects (only describing the positive side, citing from the Slovak powerplant’s home page), - missing description of Hungarian civil movements that led to aborting the original project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.0.70.248 ( talk) 20:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What reasons were there to use this tag?-- Svetovid ( talk) 17:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- The editor who placed the tag, Nmate ( talk · contribs) is currently blocked, so you may wish to ask on his/her talkpage. If there is no reasonable reply within a couple days, go ahead and remove the tag. -- El on ka 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I am copying the comments from Nmate, in case anyone would like to respond:
Because this is an Hungarian - Slovak common topic, but does not imply the Hungarian point of view at all. Nmate
1,The article does not deal with the antecedents of the contract.
2,Slovakia hurt Hungary's territorial integrity because diverted the boundary river to their own area.(Danube river more serious river than Wisła river because I saw the Wisła river in Warszawa.)
3,The article does not deal with the environment protection aspect at all. Nmate
I have also removed the "cleanup" template and replaced it with {{ npov}}. El on ka 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I also copy my comments made just after Elonka's copying here:
- Let me disagree with you on points 2 and 3.
- The mere fact of large amount of water divertion had no effect on territorial integrity of Hungary. The border has not changed at all, it is still old stream filled with water, albeit with less water. This was a matter of dispute before court as far as I know. On what do you base your claim?
- Article deals with ecology aspect in sentences "The argument against the dam was danger to the environment and to the water supply of Budapest." and "The threat of ecological catastrophe didn't materialize during the following years; on the contrary, the Danube floodplains surrounding the area have been saved from draining observed in the past." Of course, this is unsourced, but your claim of article not dealing with this is not true. Expansion of this would be surely helpful, I would even say that enviromental aspect would be worthy of own section later, after expansion of article.
- On general, however, I would not say the article is "poorly" written. Incomplete - why not, there are many facts missing there. --Ruziklan (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel an NPOV tag isn't justified enough so I removed it. Probably the article could use some expansion, but that's not equal to POV, or? 81.152.74.148 ( talk) 12:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"The article does not deal with the antecedents of the contract." That's not a POV issue. It needs expansion.
"Slovakia hurt Hungary's territorial integrity because diverted the boundary river to their own area." Personal opinion, AKA
original research.
"The article does not deal with the environment protection aspect at all." Again, that's not a POV issue. Actually, the article touches that with: "The threat of ecological catastrophe didn't materialize during the following years; on the contrary, the Danube floodplains surrounding the area have been saved from draining observed in the past." This statement needs citation, but it's not a POV issue unless someone has a reliable source that doubts this.--
Svetovid (
talk) 18:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So are there actually any POV issues or can the tag be removed?-- Svetovid ( talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
The Hungarian side of the story is clearly missing here. While the role of the environmentalist movement and particularly the role of Danube Circle was briefly mentioned, but the article did not realize their significance. I wish I had some time to write about the political background that still ties the hands of every Hungarian governments to seek any sort of compromise. Bmfekete ( talk) 16:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The article should be split into two articles. One would be Gabčíkovo - Nagymaros project dealing with the initial project and the case in the International Court of Justice and the other would be Gabčíkovo Dam about the realized dam with two levels: Gabčíkovo and Čunovo.-- Svetovid ( talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don´t find it needed, because there is not so much information in this article yet.-- Michalides ( talk) 20:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
I would like to rename the article on Gabčíkovo Dams, because there is no "Nagymaros". Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros project is just a part of it´s history.-- Michalides ( talk) 20:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- I would not do that for one year by 2011. User:Izomtibor 16:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I am affraid that you do not understand the substance of this topic. Slovakia one-sided diverted the Danube river to their own area. Do you know what it means? Hungary's territorical integrity is hurting. After these it is strange if this text says about the environmental advantages. I know it well. It is more better if a country has both banks of a river-- Nmate ( talk) 08:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- The environmental impacts in Slovakia are based on researches of Water Research Institute, which is doing a measure not only on water, but also on surrounding forest´s fauna and flora in Slovakia side - annualy, or every couple of years. The results are very minutely being described on the same slovak page I introduced and are judged as possitive. If you know about impacts on nature on the hungarian side, write it. The integrity was also discussed here, border is still the same on the old Danube stream, only with less water. The international court arbitrated like this, too. You have to realize, that there was no better choice for Slovakia, how to finnish the project wihtout going on hungarian territory.--
Michalides (
talk) 08:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- I understand what you say but it is disputed.Obviously you won't agree with me
- and i won't agree with you. So this "Disputed tag" stays up on top of this article. --
Nmate (
talk) 09:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, as you want to. I know it´s written from slovak point of view, but there is nothing, what wouldnt be true. I hoped we will rebuild the article so the tag won´t need to be there.
- I filled a link about impacts in, if you scroll down on the page, you can read about it in english for every year since 1999. And you can find it also to be a hungarian statement. So you can verify this environmental impacts.-- Michalides ( talk) 09:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! Can anyone please take care of the "Environmental consequences" part? This is ridiculous from an environmental point of view and sounds more like propaganda from enthusiasts. 10:30, 01 September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.204.155.224 ( talk)
- Hi. The part is too short and thats why it deals only with global consequences and there are missing some local environmental negatives. They have been evinced expecially during the construction (like trees, which had to be cut down for example), or some smaller areas, which were drying up gradually and it had to be fixed by planting poplars. In contrary, there are many environmental possitives comming up from measures of several disciplines and conditions are far away form predicted "ecological catastrophe". I will try to fill in more informations, but in global, environmental conditons are unequivocally judged as possitive.-- Michalides ( talk) 13:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I have read differently that there really has been environmental problems in Hungary from this dam. The water table down river from the dam has dropped and the population of fish on that section of the floodplain have decreased with mean annual fish catches are down 87 percent. MontanaWind ( talk) 04:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
this article is like it was written by meciar or slota themselves. michalides, svetovid and ruziklan are all slovaks and they keep every non-slovak interpretation of the case swept off the table.
the treaty that defines the border says the border is the middle of the shipping channel of the danube. since they altered the shipping channel the border was 'de jure' moved. this isnt a personal opinion, this is an official Hungarian claim.
to editor ruziklan - your surname is Hungarian yet u dont speak Hungarian and are one big-time slovak nationalist. funny but in a shameful way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.82.97 ( talk) 11:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this source in English [1] is a good summary about environmental issues. Fakirbakir ( talk) 14:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link. It looks good, the main question is whether this PDF can be accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. If yes, would you consider updating the article?
KœrteFa
{ταλκ} 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think so, the study is from experts. See the full version of that:
[2]
Fakirbakir (
talk) 08:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want seem like the
Devil's advocate, but "written by experts" may not be enough (even though this looks impressive). Was it published? Normally, PDFs from websites are not accepted as reliable sources (I can write anything in a PDF and upload it somewhere). Is the website reliable?
KœrteFa
{ταλκ} 10:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- The website "www.bosnagymaros.hu" was part of the websites of the Hungarian Ministry of Environment and Water. This administrative unit ceased to exist in 2010. Now, the environmental topics, tasks belong to the "Ministry of Rural Development" (and its new page is kormany.hu). Fakirbakir ( talk) 14:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't want seem like the
Devil's advocate, but "written by experts" may not be enough (even though this looks impressive). Was it published? Normally, PDFs from websites are not accepted as reliable sources (I can write anything in a PDF and upload it somewhere). Is the website reliable?
KœrteFa
{ταλκ} 10:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- I think so, the study is from experts. See the full version of that:
[2]
Fakirbakir (
talk) 08:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
""Stabilization of the bottom and stream of the Danube."" ---Sorry, but this is so stupid. There is practically no water in the old Danube bed. (see, for example, [3] p. 190 "....(in) the Old Danube bed, where the the total losses (fish biomass) in all parameters exceed to 95%"). Fakirbakir ( talk) 09:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Now the Old Danube gets only 400 m3/s water however the water output used to be 2000 m3/s (average). I remember when people could take a walk in the river bed (Old Danube), because that was dry as a desert (in 1998 if I am right). Anyway I inserted some data about environmental issues into the article, because that statement above is not true. Fakirbakir ( talk) 02:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Dear user Petrinec1, I still maintain that
http://www.gabcikovo.gov.sk is not a reliable source. We need neutral independent sources.
Fakirbakir (
talk) 09:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- Yes,
http://www.gabcikovo.gov.sk is a self-published source, which is not acceptable here. Also, where does this source
[4] state that the Dam resulted in "Improved living conditions of aquatic animals and forest animals in areas around old Danube"?
KœrteFa
{ταλκ} 07:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific on what asumption it is "self-published source"? 1) As far i know page is owned by government (you could check with domaintools, UVSR - Urad Vlady SR) 2) Annual report is manuscript (without ISBN) and is only available on web (gabcikovo page) or in paper form at slovakian Enviro ministry... 3) you have there reports from '99 until now, which seems to me as quite reliable source as its published by both authors (svk/hun) 4) gabcikovo page is used on Hunagrian&Slovak wiki without problems
ad conditions - seems i put there wrong citation, worked with too many at the time i wrote it, allthough without floods, forest animals are not endangered anymore by spring/summer floods (2013 flood reached 8m+ in old Danube before station got flooded) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrinec1 ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific on what asumption it is "self-published source"? 1) As far i know page is owned by government (you could check with domaintools, UVSR - Urad Vlady SR) 2) Annual report is manuscript (without ISBN) and is only available on web (gabcikovo page) or in paper form at slovakian Enviro ministry... 3) you have there reports from '99 until now, which seems to me as quite reliable source as its published by both authors (svk/hun) 4) gabcikovo page is used on Hunagrian&Slovak wiki without problems
- Yes,
http://www.gabcikovo.gov.sk is a self-published source, which is not acceptable here. Also, where does this source
[4] state that the Dam resulted in "Improved living conditions of aquatic animals and forest animals in areas around old Danube"?
KœrteFa
{ταλκ} 07:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
The switchyard of the power station is disguised on Google Maps
This is probably not true anymore. See this photo taken in 2009: http://www.google.sk/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fimg3.rajce.idnes.cz%2Fd0303%2F3%2F3925%2F3925496_9163d58c5dd49cbad08bc1ef94fc7d98%2Fimages%2F067_Gabcikovo.JPG&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fkucajirka.rajce.idnes.cz%2FGabcikovo_letecky_2009%2F&h=901&w=1200&tbnid=cTKgwAbGdFSiYM%3A&zoom=1&docid=EMjisSa7g5ZWVM&ei=L4hdU63WBoSfO-CRgQg&tbm=isch&ved=0CJoBEDMoPDA8&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=357&page=2&start=35&ndsp=35
And the corresponding google maps section: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=dobrohost&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=47.883524,17.541191&spn=0.003274,0.007907&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=62.186014,129.550781&t=h&hnear=Dobroho%C5%A1%C5%A5,+Slovakia&z=18
The image is not sharp, but everything is visible. It is also not a problem to walk around the complex pretty close to the buildings, so i see no reason why it should be hidden on google images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.1.50 ( talk) 23:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Dams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101130142121/http://rightlivelihood.org/duna-kor.html to http://www.rightlivelihood.org/duna-kor.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gabcikovo.gov.sk/doc/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Marked it as NPOV as it reflects only the Slovak aspect of the topic: - with possible factual errors (Hague lawsuit resolution) - missing some important points of environmental aspects (only describing the positive side, citing from the Slovak powerplant’s home page), - missing description of Hungarian civil movements that led to aborting the original project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.0.70.248 ( talk) 20:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)