Talk:Ivan Gašparovič

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

The article implies that Gasparovic was born in Croatia. Is this the case? If so the article outght to say so. Adam 00:27, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Umm, no, it doesn't. It says that his /father/ was born there, and then went to live in Slovakia. His son, subsequently, was born in Slovakia, in a town called Poltár (I read this in his biography at the external link). --Shallot 10:39, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

the link to "movement for democracy" takes you to the \cape verde party stubb....? Ciriii 23:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esterházy[edit]

The paragraph about János Esterházy sounds like a bad joke. Can anything be more biased than calling someone a "martyr"??? Laddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.174.132 (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gasparovic revision[edit]

Copied from User talk:The_Banner#Re: Gasparovic revision Just a heads up: I will be deleting, one final time, the section dealing with the controversy. It is an extremely marginal topic, and has zero place in Slovak political discourse. It is being singled out for nefarious reasons by Hungarian nationalists to further an agenda (specifically, the rehabilitation of János Esterházy, the article of whom is also in need of a great deal of work to be NPOV). As such, the article on Gasparovic is unbalanced, politically charged and creates a incomplete and skewed picture for the disinterested reader. The section adds nothing towards the article itself, and cannot be improved without an extreme amount of work on the article itself (i.e. without adding every single inconsequential dispute and controversy, either domestic or international, that Gasparovic has been part of). The fact that the content is sourced (from a single low-quality web-only source) is not reason enough to override the safeguards that exist to protect BLPs and to make sure articles are balanced and NPOV.

As I said, it will be my last revert: For me this is a test case, and if it is this simple to hijack Wikipedia for political reasons and for the purpose of editorializing history, and if any actions done to remedy this issue are blocked and on a BLP page no less, then my efforts here are futile.

Please let me know if there is anything else you need to know, or what I can do. 89.173.110.130 (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text that you criticizes has multiple sources. The politics.hu is an English language website and hardly be accused of nationalism. Furthermore the text includes the President's and the Slovak view. And, of course the Hungarian viewpoint too. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The text has, as its source, two articles from a single medium: politics.hu. The president's view (perhaps also, at the same time, the Slovak view) is explained first in one sentence, and then refuted by two (the author was even bold enough to use the phrase "in fact", so that we may never be in doubt on what the facts of the matter are). Gasparovic's view is again revisited in two more sentences, and they are immediately refuted by two paragraphs. In total, the pro-Esteházy view is presented in eleven separate sentences.
However, the amount of space dedicated to the views of either side is irrelevant, because the whole topic is irrelevant. Simply: this is not a significant controversy, and is only being made to look like one for political purposes (again, to rehabilitate János Esterházy). Indeed, the section was written for this very specific purpose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/94.21.162.2 Note the words "martyr". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.110.130 (talk) 23:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not easy to hijack Wikipedia for your own POV. Secondly, the parts that you removed were properly sourced. I don't think the article was unbalanced, because the removed and restored parts were in a clearly marked section "Controversies". If you want to balance an article, you should have added information. Not remove undesired text and editwarring. The Banner talk 00:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a single controversy in the section "controversies", surely it is to be expected that this is his greatest controversy, or that this is a controversy that defines the person: but in fact it is not, by far. I have explained why I chose to delete the section, not add information: if I were to add all the controversies that are of equal or greater prominence, and gave them similar weight, the article would be nothing more than a list of this persons controversies. I do not believe "being sourced" is the only criterion when considering whether to include text in wikipedia. Please have a look at my whole argument. Imagine if the article on Obama included a section titled "controversies" with three paragraphs only his disagreement to open CIA archives on UFOs. While surely true, and probably well sourced, I believe it is clear that the section would hinder, not improve the article. 89.173.110.130 (talk) 06:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clear: it is not me or you to decide if an article is unbalanced. It is up to the community. And editwarring over it is absolutely not done. Consider yourself a happy man for having the article locked in your version AND for escaping a block for editwarring. But I'll promise you: when you continue the editwarring, you will not escape a block. The Banner talk 13:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How many people make a community? I was bold and decided to improve an unbalanced article, gave my reasons and was open to discussion. My changes were reverted without comment. It is not I that was editwarring. 89.173.110.130 (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. It is considered editwarring when someone reverts three times within 24 hours. You reverted 5 times in six hours. That is clearly editwarring.
Secondly, I don't see any attempt of you to open the discussing at the talkpage. The Banner talk 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where exactly the I was supposed to start the discussion. I gave the reasons for the changes in the edit summary, if there was a better place to put it, I would gladly have done so. Instead, my changes were reverted and my reasons for making them ignored. 89.173.110.130 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of copied section

Simply because of the combination of an unregistered user and the lack of discussion on the talkpage of the article. It looked to me like a vandal going on, sorry. The Banner talk 13:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is being unregistered frowned upon? I would prefer not to register, however if this somehow a problem, I can always make an account.89.173.110.130 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unregistered users will be less trusted. It should not be but with so many vandals being unregistered, it is understandable that they get a crital look straight away. So yes, I would suggest that you register. It is free and done in a matter of minutes. You can choose every nickname you like (as long as it not impersonating somebody, a company name or a rude name). The Banner talk 14:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well perhaps this will make me trustworthy. NebolParcel (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At least you are not disadvantaged anymore by your IP. The Banner talk 15:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the deletion of the whole text is a very drastic step. Can we agree on a consensual solution? --Norden1990 (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

I have restored the section "Controversies" to facilitate the discussion. Can you guys give arguments why it should stay or why it should be removed? The Banner talk 02:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it stay?[edit]

  1. ...

Why should it be removed[edit]

  1. ...

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ivan Gašparovič. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ivan Gašparovič. 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:

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) 02:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ivan Gašparovič. 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:

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) 04:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ivan Gašparovič. 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:

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) 19:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ivan Gašparovič. 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:

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) 17:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivan_Gašparovič&oldid=1207230202"