Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 23:25, 7 August 2024

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Slovakia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edit wars

This article, and several others, have been affected by edit wars for quite some time. However, there is no discussion here as to what the dispute is about. Could someone please explain it? Either here, or at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#Petržalka . Thanks, Elonka 12:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1st of all, I don't understand why some editors are repeatedly inserting redundancy, calling it a "service", when in fact that "service" is already present. I think there's something like a double standard, creating happily names section in the cities in Hungary AND limiting ONLY into names, i.e., no lead. I believe something isn't ok. 78.99.121.251 (talk) 12:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was left by a confirmed abusive sockpuppet of banned user:MarkBA.

It is common practice to include alternate forms of the name in the lead of an article. See WP:UE#Include alternatives. --Elonka 12:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's covered under History already (it could be Names as well), so in this case it's completely redundant. 78.99.121.251 (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was left by a confirmed abusive sockpuppet of banned user:MarkBA.

Exactly. That's why I've moved the names from the historical section to the headline. CoolKoon (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite an urgent matter to do I think, moving up... 78.99.121.251 (talk) 22:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was left by a confirmed abusive sockpuppet of banned user:MarkBA.

The Hungarian and German names were removed again. It would be too hard to admit that neither Czechoslovakia NOR Slovakia did exist before 1918. It was created by the will of the English and French. But before that, ehm....Slovakia was Hungary. Which means that the history of Hungary is also your history. And it doesn't make one bit of difference whether you admit it or not. It's a fact. A nondisputable fact. CoolKoon (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what is the reason for the above message? Aside from the fact that it's a personal attack (which I hope you'll fix), as near as I can tell, the article has been stable for a week, and that particular anon has not participated for two weeks now. Is there something else going on? --Elonka 19:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that you've issued me a warning telling me not to edit conflicting articles? No, not really. Only the fact that my edit has been reverted again but I'm not supposed to complain and revert it, as it will start a new revert war, and I don't want to be blocked because of people who just won't sleep well if they'd see a Hungarian term anywhere (BTW I didn't address anybody in person....I was trying to use the plural form of "you", which can be greatly misunderstood in English....) CoolKoon (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

You can edit whatever you want, but you are to avoid reverting good faith edits, and you are supposed to stay civil and try to assume good faith. I looked at the article to see what you were talking about, and the thing that seemed to be being reverted was just the alternative names in the lead of the article. Is that still your main concern, or are there other parts of the article that you have questions about? As for the names, there is an active discussion going on about this at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment, I encourage you to continue participating there. --Elonka 00:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you tell me why should I assume good faith from an IP address which you identified as MarkBA's sockpuppet? And yes, the alternative names is still my concern. The situation becomes even more absurd in the light of articles about other cities of Slovakia where nobody seems to be bothered by the German and Hungarian names being there (I won't give any examples here since that would cause the revert war to spread out to even more articles).

BTW I still keep participating in your talk page reserved for similar issues, but I've got some other things to do as well. It's a pity that most of these guys have nothing else to do than try and delete everything beginning with "Hun", especially if it's been added to an article which is by any means connected to Slovakia or the Slovaks. For instance I even voted on the 6 proposals you have there. CoolKoon (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternative names

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Based on my review of the previous discussions (see below), it appears that of all currently active editors, the consensus is to include the alternate names in the lead. This is also in accordance with WP:UE#Include alternatives and WP:NCGN#General guidelines. So go ahead and add the alternate names back in. Anyone that removes them, put the names back, link to this discussion in the edit summary, place a warning on the removing user's talkpage which links to this discussion, and potentially bring it up at the Experiment page as well. If anyone wants to change this status quo, it will then be their responsibility to participate at talk and to build a new consensus, per WP:CCC. --Elonka 18:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Archive 3)

Can someone please explain what the dispute is, at this article? Why is there an edit war? There's nothing at the talkpage, but editors have been pulling the article back and forth for a long time. What is going on? --Elonka 12:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've posted my reply at the talkpage. To the other points, sorry, but I don't think I'm too aggressive; I just want to keep the accepted status quo (ante bellum), not some creepy propaganda, if I got to tell it this way. Unfortunately, I believe their sins aren't exposed much yet; how come a comment suggesting that someone is a Nazi follower could go unpunished? (I've seen it somewhere) Why, why, and again, why? I'm asking thrice to emphasize. 78.99.121.251 (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see it is warring about whether there should or should not be included Hungarian and German name of Petržalka in the first sentence. Namely whether it should sound "Petržalka (Hungarian (Pozsony)ligetfalu, German Engerau) is the largest borough of Bratislava ..." or "Petržalka is the largest borough of Bratislava ..." --Ruziklan (talk) 12:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:UE#Include alternatives, the common practice is to include other versions of names by which the article subject is commonly known. --Elonka 12:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think key issue is that both Engerau and Ligetfalu are historic names, but probably are not used anymore, perhaps except German and Hungarian sources. I have never seen Poszonyligetfalu however. --Ruziklan (talk) 13:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the key issue is rather the fact that due to poisonous attack messages some now see even minor disputes as "war" and want to protect the "status quo (ante bellum)" (as things were before the war). Hobartimus (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Was there edit warring over the sentence? Yes. I have just given the description of situation and try to explain to uninvolved Elonka probable reasons why the edit war has emerged. Personally, I would rather prefer inclusion of both names in the article per WP:UE#Include alternatives. I have also checked the good example of Basel that is internationally known Swiss town quite far from Italy, nevertheless, its preamble lists also Italian name that is most probably not used in any except Italian sources. So in my view the sentence should look "Petržalka (Hungarian Ligetfalu, German Engerau) is the largest borough of Bratislava ..." --Ruziklan (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ruziklan: it's spelled Pozsony (zs is pronounced like the g in the French name of Geneva), since it's meaningless if spelled like Poszony (where sz is pronounced like s in English).

Besides I don't know any native German speaker in person, so I don't know whether it's used. However I know many Hungarians who do use the term (usually not the rural people, but most of the original inhabitants of Bratislava do). Therefore I don't think that it's a historical name. Especially since it's still used in present-day Hungarian newspapers. BTW I've encapsulated the word Pozsony in parentheses because of the fact that it's Bratislava's name in Hungarian (where many village names near a bigger city have been created by adding the city's name as a prefix, like Budakeszi, Budaörs near Budapest, and the same naming convention has been followed throughout the whole Kingdom of Hungary, hence the Pozsony- prefix), but it's only formally called Pozsonyligetfalu. Informally it's called Ligetfalu/Liget. CoolKoon 18:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for the misspelling. The term historical name I have used in a sense that Petržalka probably was referred to using these names widely in the past, probably even as official names, both Engerau and (Pozsony)ligetfalu. Currently these names are used almost exclusively only in original languages. Many similar examples exist worldwide. --Ruziklan (talk) 18:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you again. Take for example Geneva. It's German name is Genf, the Italian one is Ginevra. Does this mean that these are "unofficial"? No. And even if in English the French form is used, Hungarian for instance prefers the German form. Which means that all the three names can be used simultaniously. Another example is the German name of the villages/cities in South Tirol. Or the Catalan names of the cities in Catalonia, which is actually part of Spain. CoolKoon (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand with what you disagree. Have I written that Engerau or (Pozsony)ligetfalu cannot be used? No. The question could be however, whether these names actually are used in languages other than German and Hungarian. Probably we do not know, or do you?

And finally, I just want to restate that I prefer including these names in the artcile preamble as per above. --Ruziklan (talk) 19:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't seen your latest comment above. But this still doesn't mean that Svetovid and the "Anonymous coward" (viva el Reg) whose IP address begins with 78.99..... will stop the revert war. CoolKoon (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I hold my position that in this case, a double is completely redundant. If anything, keeping 'em separated prevents the lead clutter, regardless whether there are 2 or 10 alternatives. 78.99.121.251 (talk) 14:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some people don't want Petržalka's Hungarian and German name to appear at the headline. I don't know the reason of that since I'm on the opposite side :P CoolKoon 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

From here: "has been declared on October 28 in Prague, the leaders of Bratislava (where the majority of the population are Germans or Hungarians, see below) want to prevent Bratislava from becoming part of Czecho-Slovakia and declare the town a free town and rename it Wilsonovo mesto (Wilson City) after US-president Woodrow Wilson." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rembaoud (talk • contribs) 18:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And your point is ... ? I think nobody denies that both Bratislava and Petržalka have had different names in the past than they have today. (By the way, I do not think Petržalka was a part of Bratislava in 1918.) --Ruziklan (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I readded the alternative names per User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment/Archive 3#Petržalka, User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment#Petržalka and WP:NCGN (see edit summary too), also added language templates. Squash Racket (talk) 04:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That talk wasn't concluded in this way so your inclusion can be seen as provocation and should be reverted. Elonka made some cocnlusion based on demands from a particular group of editors but that has no binding power.--Svetovid (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Once an uninvolved admin has made a determination of consensus, editors are expected to abide by it. Svetovid, this applies doubly for you, since you are already under ArbCom editing restrictions from the Digwuren case, and have further been placed on additional "no revert" editing restrictions for 30 days. --Elonka 12:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)3

Your decision ignored this part (The lead) of the naming conventions and also you claim consensus after a debate in which only editors that didn't add any real content to the article had their say.--Svetovid (talk) 14:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

History is unbalanced now

While Nmate claims in edit summary he has added very important information to History section, I think it is unbalanced in the current form after addition of 1945 info (besides being formatted not in the best way):

• 1910 – Of its 2947 inhabitants, 1997 were German, 495 Hungarian and 318 Slovak.

• 1938 – Petžalka was annexed by Nazi Germany on the basis of the Munich agreement, but after World War II was returned to Czechoslovakia.
• 1945 (May 5): Slovak soldiers broke into the flats of Hungarians living in Bratislava. Packaging was allowed in a half past hour. 90% of Hungarian population was transferred to Petržalka having about 20000 people in detention camps between inhuman circumstances.
  90 teenage soldiers -came from Csík county- who did not take part in military actions were murdered by Czechoslovakian soldiers with shot in the backs of the neck on the way home in the weeks after the World War II in Petržalka.
• 1946 – Petržalka officially became a part of Bratislava.

• 1977 – construction of the housing blocks began.

• 2001 – from its 117,227 inhabitants, 108,600 were Slovak, 4259 Hungarian, 1788 Czech and 219 German.

• 2003 – Pope John Paul II visited Petržalka and celebrated a Sunday Liturgy.

• November 4, 2005 – university student Daniel Tupý was stabbed to death at the bank of the Danube. His violent killing by a group of neonazis became a symbolic act of ethnic and racial and general hatred against others in Slovakia

Unbalanced - because there are given too much details of acts that were part of wider history, not very specific to Petržalka. Also Pope visit was very important, with many visitors, That is why I dare to rewrite and shorten it into the following form:

• 1945 - Large portion of Hungarians living in Bratislava were transferred to Petržalka into detention camps, also murders of Hungarian soldiers in post-war days are reported.

As this is very grim part of history, many would like to have a chance to check some reliable source in understandable language, hm? What is the status of referenced page? Otherwise there can be expended tries to remove this information completely - and in my view well grounded tries. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Being at this, I rewrote also Daniel Tupý part - but this is more history of something else (hatred, murders, ...) than Petržalka itself, if you know, what I mean:

• 2005 – a murder of Daniel Tupý took place at at the bank of the Danube. --Ruziklan (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Exceptional claims need exceptional sources, is that right? I do not consider http://www.transindex.ro/ a reliable source. If those things happened as described by Hobartimus and Nmate, I am sure they will be able to find a reliable published source (such as a book on history of Bratislava). Until then, I believe the claim should be removed. I have also a problem with the length of Nmate's addition, which is disproportionately too long. The addition is about what happened in Bratislava, not what happened in Petrzalka. Since this article is about Petrzalka, I shortened a bit Nmate's text. Tankred (talk) 02:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Now this is becoming ridiculous. Nmate again states in the edit summary that he does not agree with my rewrite, but he does not say what was wrong in my shortening rewrite and fails to notice that current version is not mine, rather the result of Hobartimus' and Tankred's editing. I repeatedly state that I am not going to edit this, however as far as I understand the way this experiment is lead, discussing in edit summaries is not enough. I have given my points on both experiment talk and Petržalka talk in length. Why does not Nmate do it similarly?

And is new source any better? --Ruziklan (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of Daniel Tupý seems to be a sad example of using someone's death to belittle Slovak cities. Rembaoud (talk · contribs) also inserted him in Žilina, but when I asked for explanation there was none. It's been 2 weeks now so I removed it both here and there.--Svetovid (talk) 14:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What is "recentism"? Is there a policy that after 200X (2004 i guess then) info can not be added??? What is POV in it??? Tupy is well referenced and had big enough impact to be mentioned. See Solingen for similar stuff. Put it back, please, fast. --Rembaoud (talk) 23:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "well referenced?"--Svetovid (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you answer? Also what is "belitteling Slovak cities"? Where do you get these ideas? :) --Rembaoud (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no historical significance related to Petrzalka here. You inserted the info back even though it's being debated and you were unable to show the historical significance, which is against restrictions placed on you.--Svetovid (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a memorial of him on the bank of the Danube, amongst with the other victims of such crimes. Where have you lived in 2005/2006? --Rembaoud (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

References

1. "Transindex" (in Hungarian). no date. Retrieved 23 March. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)
2. "Transindex" (in Hungarian). no date. Retrieved 23 March. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Unknown parameter |accessyear= ignored (|access-date= suggested) (help)

unclear

I feel still somewhat unclear about the status of Slovaks, Hungarians etc. in Petržalka between 1938 and 1945. The current wording does not really seem consistent with outside events (Slovakia and Hungary as German allies) and in itself (they have to stay, but are persecuted?) While I of course can't really rule out it's all true, I tend to think this might also be a problem with the source or with the translation, or with the wording.

Secondly, I'd prefer to use the German name in the context of the labour camp. It was at that time the official name of the village, and it also seems to be the name used in much of the relevant literature (which happens to be of Austrian origin). Yaan (talk) 11:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be clearer now. Yes, they were not allowed to move from Petržalka. As for the name, it's about consistency. The German name is in parentheses.--Svetovid (talk) 11:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, then I think it's the wording. Maybe it's just me, but persecution sounds as if all of them were threatened by the Gestapo all the time, were put into prison at least once etc. I.e. a bit strong. I can't think of a useful alternative, though ("repressed" just sounds too unspecific).

For the name, the relation of Engerau and Petržalka is explained several times within the article, so I don't think people will get confused from reading just Engerau. IMO the case is somewhat similar to Auschwitz and Theresienstadt (on a much smaller scale, though), both of which seem to be more well-known under their respective German names. Yaan (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Persecution included closure of Slovak schools, replacement of Slovak language, inability to participate in public life and move from Petržalka, and Gestapo activities, as describe in the article.--Svetovid (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Petersilienhain

Petersilienhain yields 8 (eight) hits on google, which makes me wonder how reliable this info on the German equivalent of Petržalka is. I assume it's not a direct translation (translation of Petersilienhain to english would be "parsley grove") ? Yaan (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"parsley" is Petersilie in German, peteršílj in Slovak and pertržel in Czech. "Petersilienhain" is not mentioned as a German name in German wikipedia. The name was added by Svetovid . The reference he added says "Názov Petržalka je údajne odvodený od toho, že mnohí z obyvateľov sa živili pestovaním ovocia a zeleniny, ktorú potom na bratislavských trhoch predávali. Mohlo ísť o posmešnú prezývku. Názov sa ujal v 20. rokoch, v nemčine znie Petersilienhain." The latter may mean something like: "in German it was known as Petersilienhain", but since I only understand a little Slovak, I would like someone to confirm that. Of the 8 Google hits for Petersilienhain, 6 are for a work of art by Eva Ursprung (Slovak translation: Petržlenový háj) commemorating the old railway from Hainburg to Bratislava via Petržalka. So I doubt that Petersilienhain is or was a common German name for Petržalka. Markussep 15:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll remove it then. Markussep 06:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Annexed or awarded

I've noticed a little edit clash going on here. Could either of the parties involved provide some sources for their claims, please? Without any referencing I would prefer if the more general statement was used. Wladthemlat (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Logo

Here's the new official logo of the borough of Petrzalka: https://www.petrzalka.sk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Logo_znak.jpg --Nvoei (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

• B-Class Slovakia articles
• Mid-importance Slovakia articles
• All WikiProject Slovakia pages