Talk:Ján Slota

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

To Juro: So, first of all I don´t know what is "wishy-washy", but I guess it has something to do with my revision being too much politically correct. Well, if you meant it this way, I can´t agree with you, because in my revison it was clearly stated that some of Slota´s statements are against Magyars and therefore xenophobic (is "xenophic" really the right word?). I also added that his statements were misconductful. I haven't changed your revision about his critics calling him extremely right and arrogant. So what is then "wishy-washy"? If I wrote that he makes statements about SMK, some of which are also against Magyars as a nation, it's simply true and if you followed Slota's speeches carefully, you would find it out. Mostly, in about 95 percent or more of his SMK speeches, he speaks only against the SMK. And why I deleted the mention of Roma? Well, you can keep it there, I only don't know of any latest Slota's words about the Roma, in fact, he doesn't speak about them as much as he used to. But anyway, this is not a big problem for me. But what does this mean: "extremely conservative prejudice"? What the hell is that? Well, if some leftist wants to write things like these on his homepage, he can, but does this really sound NPOV? Most conservatives would never accept any linking of their philosophy to any "extremism". And they also wouldn't agree that being against homosexuality is necesarilly based on prejudices. Oh, they know very well, why they are against. So this formulation itself is simply POV. I would like to hear from you what exactly is the "prejudice"? Another thing, I can't agree with the revision that Slota speaks against homosexuals. Again, when we follow his statements we see he is actually against homosexuality. But maybe you know some quotes i don't. If you know about such, when he spoke about homosexuals as persons, OK, we can keep the revision. I think that the idea of Wikipedia is that whoever reads it and is at least a little bit serious, whether he is leftist, rightist, Arab,Jewish, Slovak, Magyar, he shouldn't feel a strong protest when he reads an article. I want to write articles with contents that you won't have to protest inside (what you did not like about my revision was not content, but form) and I hope you want to write articles I won't have to protest inside. Wikipedia should simply be about facts. I think you just wrote how you FELT Slota's statements and not how they really are. Probably the best idea would be to publish some of them here - like controversial statements in Jean-Marie Le Pen. I think that would be most fair. Agree? Laddy or Liberal Nationalist 00:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Laddy, to put it short, he MAKES anti-Hungarian and other primitive xenophobic statements quite often, it is irrelevant whether he makes them in 70% of his speeches or in 30%, normal politicians do not make any such statements. I do not remember the details of your change, but the result was inacceptable, because it sounded like "the poor misunderstood person". And doing philosophy about even such issues is WWII (to put it politely), OK? I know you are a SNS fan, but everything has its limits, we do not live in the 19th century or in Siberia. Juro 16:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well,no. He makes statements about the SMK, that is the core. Statements against Magyars as a nation are just a small precent as I said. My revision agreed that Slota had xenophobic statements and that he is misconductful. I cannot accept your views and I think there would be more people that wouldn't. Let us remember the four letters> NPOV. I am going to publish those statements so that everyone can make an opinion and change your revision BTW you didn't explain the thing about prejudice. I ask you once more for this, please, I saw this as a really bad formulation. Laddy P.S.: You can believe me, I am more critical about this party than you would guess.

Juro, I hope you're OK with the latest revision, please read it carefully and I hope you will agree that it is balanced. Laddy

And one more thing. I have the feeling that you view me as some kind of fanatic. It is perhaps partially my folt, if I look here sometimes in this way. I hope we will have the pleasure collaborating at more articles and you will see that there certainly are bigger radicals than me. It is in my nick that I am just a liberal (meaning moderate, and a very very moderate one) nationalist. This was just about your revision being really really bad. And to prevent edit wars, let's try to make a compromise, if you still don't agree with the revison. Anyway, I already made a big concession replacing the word "some" with "many" - about Slota's anti-Magyar expressions. I still want it to be expressed that the main aim of the statements is SMK. Simply to be correct. I have much more favourite people on the planet than the man this article is about. Laddy

Firstly, and I cannot "accept" the current spread of extremism and explicit lies in this wikipedia. Secondly, quotes like "the Magyars are ugly" or the Magyars have "crooked legs" are no xenophobic statements??? A much worse attribute would be appropriate actually. Thirdly, you are trying to hide the reality by a long pseudo-polemical talk. Everything can be relativized by a longer speech, that is not the point here. And most importantly, instead of wasting your time on only one or two articles you have written here and you have been fanatically supervising since, you should invest your in articles like Slovakization, Magyarisation etc., so that the guy there has an equal counterpart. Juro 11:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: And as for the tanks part. He did not have to "explain" how he meant it, because if you read the whole quote, he actually DID SAY it in the context that Slovakia is being attacked. Juro 11:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Juro, I´m almost satisfied with the revision. Almost. Still, there is the unbelievable sentence about extremely conservative prejudice. You still haven´t answered me, what that means. I simply cannot regard it in any way NPOV. Secondly, dear companion, why don´t you put the sentence with crooked legs you mentioned, to the text? That´s what I already challenged to. In my revison, I write it for the third time, I mentioned for example that his statements were misconductful and that some of his statements were xenophobic. This was just another example when you reacted more on your emotions than what was actually written. Go look at the older revisions and you will see what I actually wrote. I never wanted to depict Slota as an angel. About my work on Wikipedia - I work mostly at the Slovak one, on this just marginally. Don´t criticise my style of work, please, I don´t criticise yours. It is quite natural that I keep an eye on the articles that I created. Laddy

I have corrected the information on Slota in accordance with his website's information and my own memory (I refused to join a group of consuls general who called on him in 1991). Paul

[edit] NPOV

"He has repeatedly made and makes xenophobic, nationalist, abusive statements about the Party of the Hungarian Coalition (the party of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia), and Hungarians in general. He also strongly abuses in his speeches the Roma and homosexuals, although Slota says he is only against alleged homosexual propaganda. In a speech given in 1999 at a HZDS rally on March 5 1999, Slota (obviously drunk) said,"

This paragraph needs to be rewritten to the point where it returns this entry to an encyclopedia article rather than a political attack page. Furthermore, there are quotations and criticisms elsewhere in the article that are unsourced.

Chubbles 10:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Chubbles 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
So, the comments are back with sources...but I can't help but see it as still sounding somewhat like an attack page. The page still seems to suffer from undue weight, but part of that might just be that the rest of the page is so short on information. Chubbles 15:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Slota's nationalistic (or even racist) opinions should be definitely noted in article. However I don't think the right way to do so is to list his controversial quotes; instead we should describe his nationalistic opinions in general (possibly in a fewer sentences than we currently do). Also, backing quotes by (mostly) Hungarian sources is a bit POVish. I could fix the article, however with my poor English I would probably screw the stuff up even more :-) Miko3k (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have just removed unsourced controversial material. I second your suggestion to rewrite the part about Slota's opinions, however very carefully and reliably sourced personal history is not out of question. --Ruziklan (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that this article may have serious WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) issues. You are free to become very aggressive about removing information which is not solidly sourced. I have added this page to my watchlist, and if you feel that you need more help with it, you may wish to post a report at WP:BLPN, the BLP Noticeboard. Many editors there are very familiar with BLP issues and can help offer uninvolved opinions. Also, since this article relies a great deal on non-English sources, we might want to insist on stricter adherence to WP:RSUE (Reliable sources - use English), which means that if a non-English source is used, that a quote and translation from that source must be included in the reference, to assist other editors with verifying the information. --Elonka 04:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem here is that as far as I know the content is all right. Quite naturally, controversial policians are subject to media attention, and this everything was covered by media in Slovakia, Hungary, Czechia and maybe somewhere else, quite widely, but not in English speaking world. As English language source The Slovak Spectator (published in Bratislava) is definitely an option - only someone should look it up. --Ruziklan (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
The article already has three English language sources, two of them from Der Spiegel, one of the most reliable (and in this case neutral) sources you can find. This is not bad for a short article like that. Squash Racket (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, and that is good. What I was thinking about, it was covering by English language source also points so far sourced in Slovak or Hungarian only. Slovak Spectator is one of the most serious Slovak newspapers and is in English, that is why I have recommended it to anyone wanting to find the source. But well, personally I see no further need to work here right now. :-) --Ruziklan (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be very helpful for someone to create a stub article on the Slovak Spectator (and other redlinks at List of newspapers in Slovakia) and link them via interwiki to any relevant articles in other language Wikipedias. That would help to establish which ones were most suitable as reliable sources. --Elonka 13:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(copied from Talk:Trnava) Is there any green in my eye? "Invective" huh? Don't even think of trying to "play" like this, Ruziklan. You read, and was aware of them too, since the media was full with these that times, as well as now with his petty and not so petty crimes. --Rembaoud (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Four things:
1. You are out of topic here. The changes of Ján Slota article should be discussed on its talk page, not on page about Trnava. Why you bring this diff here?
2. Last word here to explain. I have removed that content not because it is not true, but because it is about living person, potentially libel and completely unsourced in the moment, thus per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. It is not my business to provide sources, you are free to do so and thank you for doing so.
3. If you do not understand, naming Ján Slota as Johnnyboy is invective, as simple as such.
4. Please, do not call my actions "playing" (with quotation marks), I am trying to adhere to all set rules and acting in a good faith.
I am copying these two replies also to Talk:Ján Slota, please, continue the discussion there if you wish. --Ruziklan (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Also thanks to User:Squash Racket for further references. --Ruziklan (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)