Talk:Hedvig Malina/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Political prisoners and victims

What is the justification for this category? I can't see anything. She hasn't been in prison, nor is she involved in politics, nor prosecuted or harassed for her political stances.
There isn't a single (reliable) reference outside Wikipedia and its clones using that label either
This is a dangerous precedence because this article makes Wikipedia an original source of facts, which is against its core policies.
For the record: when the category was removed, certain editors inserted it back without any evidence.--Svetovid (talk) 11:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Answer:

• She was allegedly beaten by Slovak Neonazis for speaking Hungarian (minorities' situation in post-Trianon countries, Ján Slota's right wing party in the Slovak government etc.)
• Robert Fico, Prime Minister of Slovakia allegedly abused his power looking into the documents of the investigation, making unacceptable (and early) remarks about the victim (his unwanted political pressure shown in a recent other case)
• Robert Kalinák similarly getting involved in the case
• she became a key figure in diplomatic tensions between two EU countries

I think these points make her a political victim. But I'm also open to new category suggestions. Squash Racket (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Svetovid. It's doesn't look she 'personally' was a political prisoner. She may be a pawn used by politicians but that doesn't make her a prisoner. Again, she was beaten for 'speaking Hungarian', but in the end, she was a student. Was she doing something that would make it look like they targeted for any reason other than speaking Hungarian? It seems like a case of racial or ethnic hatred than political. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but this article only belongs in this single one category? As I said I'm also open to suggestions. Squash Racket (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I would suggest a title change first. The article isn't so much about Malina but about the attack itself. See for example Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, so once that makes sense, then categories make more sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Title change was suggested first as early as January to "Hedvig Malina case" in the Afd, but with editors unclear on the pro and contra sort of precedent was searched for and Rodney King was brought up which article also mainly about the case but named after the person. One question is if the BLP policy would still protect the article under new name, with the current title it clearly does that's something to consider. There is some discussion on this in the talk page archive also. Hobartimus (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

To say something about the categories, we should find some new ones to replace the removed category. Someone who knows the category system should do this. Hobartimus (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course BLP would still apply. You are talking about a living person Malina, and accusations about living people including the Prime Minister of a country. Remember that the BLP situation itself came from a single sentence that mentioned that person's name. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Start of the political involvement

I removed the clause "At first, nearly all Slovakian political parties distanced themselves from the case" from the attack section. There really isn't a reason to say that the parties "distanced" themselves. It's not like every attack should have an immediate response from political parties. Now, I don't know Hungarian but could someone fill out more of what the Slovak National Party was doing with the story. Did they encourage it by claiming sympathy, try to claim something else, have some links? The more specific, the better. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It may be unusual, but the source contains the sentence you deleted word by word, but states no more than that about what SNS said. I think the political parties "distanced themselves" from the alleged Neonazi hate crime. What is POV on that? They just don't agree with it, while SNS remained silent. All political parties voiced their concerns except for the one right wing party, a member of the government coalition. Squash Racket (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it was in the source. I guess I misunderstood how quickly the press picked up the political implications. I thought it might have been more of a "attack that's sort of ignored, one party makes a big deal, nobody else comments, then everyone has to comment." Besides, what does it mean to "distance yourself" from a hate crime? Did they just say "no comment"? Did they express sympathy? Did they express remorse? Did they ignore it, playing the old "wait until the police get all the facts" bit? I mean, there are many ways to deal with an alleged hate crime. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It means condemning the alleged hate crime. You are right, it probably needs to be changed in the text. So all political parties condemned the alleged incident except for SNS, the right wing member of the government, they remained silent. Squash Racket (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Now, THAT makes sense. Good to see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Distancing yourselves from a case" is a Hunglish phrase. These are so natural to us that they are the most difficult to spot. Squash Racket (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a bit after the moment, but "Distancing yourselves from a case" is perfectly natural good English. It does not mean condemning usually though - it's usually used when the authority makes only a short statement which says the case isn't really any of their business and that they had nothing to do with it. How this affects the article however is up to you guys! Knepflerle (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The source is Hungarian for that and the editor simply translated this from Hungarian. "Distancing yourself from a case" as a phrase in Hungarian should be translated into English as "condemning the case" in question. Squash Racket (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Details of the attack and Malina's movements

The article needs a lot more details about the attack itself. When exactly did Malina speak with Kubla? Did he report her in November 2006 or May 2007? When was the suicide and was it related? Otherwise, it's just random gossip. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they ever spoke with each other, he just reported her. The police didn't publish the suicide note, so it is not sure the suicide was related to the case. Source says according to his boss he was anti-Hungarian. He committed the suicide about two weeks before before the first court hearing. Squash Racket (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood how the legal system worked. The rest seems clear now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Handwriting details

I removed the unsourced statements about the handwriting analysis because they need sources. Along with the typical procedures, WP:BLP applies as well since these are living people being accused. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted the slightly modified part and added sources for both sentences. Squash Racket (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

March developements

Vladimír Palko, minister of the previous Slovak government, current opposition politician commented on the 2006 press conference alleging that government officials lied in an attempt to discredit Hedvig Malina. Quite a few things were said by him (it was a televised debate), but it was significant as this was the first time a prominent Slovak politician made statements that can be considered supportive of Hedvig Malina. I'll translate some direct quotes if needed. A few sources on this ; [1] [2] [3] [4] Hobartimus (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"Robert Kaliňák, Slovakian deputy prime minister and minister of the interior, declared that none of Malina's claims could be confirmed. Her mobile network operator did not record any call on the day in question." this is the part from the article to which Vladimír Palko refers to. He claims Kaliňák lied and misquoted Malina's statements then proceeded to prove these misquoted statements false. Hobartimus (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The name

As showed, not a single source in English that is not of Hungarian origin uses the Hungarian version. Of course, her legal name and the name she uses/used (she now changed her surname to another Slovak name) was Hedviga Malinová.
The dispute is obvious and it's here only because certain editors try to use the Hungarian version of the name for some reason. It may be a coincidence that the same editors try to use Hungarian versions of Slovak names as the main names in other articles too.--Svetovid (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. In any case any dispute about the name has nothing to do with the factual accuracy of the article so puting up such a tag as you did [5] is clearly unappropriate. If you have any issues actually relating to the "factual accuracy of the article" please bring them forward so we can attempt to resolve them (by bringing in more sources, tweaking etc). Hobartimus (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we look into deeply why ethnic Hungarians started "voluntarily renaming" themselves to Slovak?

After the proclamation of the Kosice program, the German and Hungarian population living in the reborn Czechoslovak state were subjected to various forms of persecution, including: expulsions, deportations, internments, peoples court procedures, citizenship revocations, property confiscation, condemnation to forced labour camps, involuntary changes of nationality and appointment of government managers to German and Hungarian owned businesses and farms, referred to euphemistically as “reslovakization.”

The external link Svetovid tried to delete at all cost and the simple fact that the official newspaper of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia (Új Szó) use the Hungarian form suggest that she actually uses the Hungarian version of her name of course, when there is no pressure from Slovak authorities/people involved. I think the naming issue itself wouldn't justify a template like that anyway.

Tom Lantos was born in Hungary, still his letter to Fico is an official letter from the US Congress. That's a fact. The International Herald Tribune though doesn't mention Malina's name, constantly refers to Tom Lantos, so I just guess which form we could prefer based on that reference. Squash Racket (talk) 04:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this is screwing the page up, I just have to say, stay out of analyzing why people are using different names. It violates WP:TALK and is just distracting. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I don't understand what is the issue. The Hungarian article call her by this name. The English citations don't mention her name. Svetovid, I see cite 10 calls her "Hedviga Malinová" so the Slovakian one also calls her that name. What do you suggest? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hedvig Malina is the Hungarian, Hedviga Malinová is the Slovak version, that's all. Actually the US Congress letter in English mentions her name (the Hungarian version) and the International Herald Tribune refers to Tom Lantos. Squash Racket (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. This was already debated in the now archived section. The only reason why it was brought up again without any new reasoning or new information is to supply a 'dispute' so a tag can be placed on the whole article disputing "factual accuracy" completely unrelated to the naming isssue of course. I suggest not to feed this discussion and simply to remove the tag until genuine concerns arise really relating to "factual accuracy". Hobartimus (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the sources using that name are of Hungarian origin. English speakers read English-language texts of all origins - sources don't carry extra weight if they come from certain countries. The rule is simple - we use the names used in English-language sources no matter where they're from because they might be the ones our English-language readers look at and want information on. Please bear this in mind. The relative weight you give to different spellings is up to the relative frequency of the two spellings (again, with no prejudice to origin - we're not here to be "fair" whatever that means, we're here to help people researching stuff they've read in whatever source) but that's a decision for you to make once you've got good evidence of the usage. Knepflerle (talk) 12:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And Hedviga Malinová is the name preferred in English sources.--Svetovid (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

And Hedvig Malina is the name preferred in English sources. The US Congress letter in English mentions her name (the Hungarian version) and the International Herald Tribune refers to Tom Lantos. Squash Racket (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid, you have been doing nothing other than repeating the same statements without any evidence about it. You cannot claim the other name in English sources when it is clear they don't use them. Do you actually have a point because you look like you're just being disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

More accusations without explanation and evidence. You still haven't answered nor explained many of your statements and actions.
For actual evidence, see Talk:Hedvig Malina/Archive 1#Requested_move.
The fact that the name Hedviga Malinová is not even mentioned in the entire article is telling.--Svetovid (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Both names are used in English-language sources and so should be mentioned at least once in the lead; firstly, to help people coming from sources of all origins identify that they are at the correct article and secondly so that it shows up on search-engines. The exact specifics of how you word this should be worked out here first, to avoid relentless edit-wars. Knepflerle (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it was there before (see earlier versions), I reinserted it. Problem solved. Squash Racket (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"despising of the work of Slovak police"

I commented out "Packa said the attitude of Malina and her lawyer was "the despising of the work of Slovak police", and Kaliňák claimed that Gál was trying to make it into a political issue." per WP:BLP. Let's keep allegations about living people out until a source is provided. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Organization of disputed facts

Since the cell phone thing is a mess with a pile of incorrect sources, I think we need a separate section explaining "sources originally said, police said she lied" and then whether she misspoke or claims that the police were lying about what she said. If you don't mention it in the first section, it makes no sense in the police investigation section. If you do mention it, she looks like a liar unless there is another reason why. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

According to this article Vladimír Palko, former Minister of the Interior after looking into the documents of the investigation said "Kalinák misquoted the girl citing parts from her hearing at the police that she actually had never said". But Kalinák says he will only provide the denial of Malina's statements after the whole investigation of the perjury accusations is over. So this is still pending and to be absolutely sure, I think we have to wait till all the documents are public. Or find another source telling more. Squash Racket (talk) 09:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

That went quick. Another source says Palko accused Kalinák specifically of lying about Malina's statements about her speaking on a mobile phone. Palko states the victim didn't say that and Kalinák lied to turn the Slovak public opinion against her, presenting her as a liar. Squash Racket (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I already brought these up above(march developements section). It's not that the sources are incorrect they accurately report what was said at the time, but they might become dated as the events progress. For example one could bring sources about the Slovak government position official ones too from 2006, but over time positions change, new facts become available etc. Lot's of sources speak about the mobile phone based on statements made by Government officials now alleged to be lies by another Slovak politician. I'll try to look into this some more to get some clarification on the mobile phone issue. Hobartimus (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The lead

...should clearly show that she is a Slovak citizen of Hungarian ethnicity from Slovakia, which my version does and the other doesn't. The other version tries to make her citizenship ambiguous. Why?--Svetovid (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Slovak from Slovakia is redundant and her ethnicity has a crucial role in the article. Emphasizing her citizenship in the very first few words blurs the ethnic background of the alleged hate crime. Squash Racket (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not redundant because emigration and immigration exist.--Svetovid (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Now even the Slovak version of her name is in the lead. This debate seems to be over. Squash Racket (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, why do you keep making the lead ambiguous?--Svetovid (talk) 18:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Slovak from Slovakia is redundant and her ethnicity has a crucial role in the article. Emphasizing her citizenship in the very first few words blurs the ethnic background of the alleged hate crime. Squash Racket (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How does it blur it?--Svetovid (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Foreign-language sources

(copying from User talk:Elonka, in response to a request to provide English translations per WP:RSUE):

Added some quotes and quick translation as per your request to the hidden section of the Hedvig Malina article. Hobartimus (talk) 17:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Those in the article don't mention any specifics about ethnicity presumably because the reader already has enough info to assume (name, citizenship, etc) or it's not considered important enough. There is quite a few other articles though when searching for "Juraj Kubla" on google without language limitations so more sources can be added if needed. Hobartimus (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work.  :) Speaking as an outside reader, I found it was a natural question when I got to that point, to wonder what ethnicity that Kubla was. But if the sources don't mention it, oh well.

My next question was on spelling: The source that you listed, spelled his name as Jaroslav, but the Wikipedia article says "Juraj". Is that because it's spelled differently in a different source? Could you supply a quote from there too? Is one name the Hungarian version, and the other name Slovak? --Elonka 19:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's spelled Juraj in most of the sources I've seen, let's see another article in Népszabadság [6] "Mindeközben kiderült az is, hogy a másik feljelentő, a harminchat éves Juraj Kubla a Galántához közeli Vágsellyéhez (Sala) tartozó Vecsén (Veca) saját lakásának pincéjében, egy gázvezetékre akasztotta fel magát, május 4-én. Munkatársai alkoholistának tartották és magyargyűlóléként jellemezték őt. Értesüléseink szerint búcsúlevelet hagyott hátra, amely a rendőrségen van. Érdeklődésünkre Martin Korch, az országos rendőrfőkapitányság szóvivője azt válaszolta, hogy a levél tartalmáról kegyeleti okok csak a családtagokat tájékoztatják." Very quick transl as this source is not used in the article, "Meanwhile it was found out that the other accuser/reporter the 36 year-old Juraj Kubla from Vágsellye in his own basement hanged himself on a gas pipe on May 4th. His co-workers descirbed him as an alcoholist and a Hungarian-hater. According to our information he left a suicide note which is now at the police station. To our inquiry Martin Koch head of police responded that only family members are allowed to learn the contents of the note." Hobartimus (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Source formatting

Since this article uses multiple non-English sources, it would be a good idea to come up with a consistent way of formatting them. I checked around Wikipedia to see if there's a standard style, but the answer seems to be, "Use whatever style you want, just make it consistent within the article." Or in other words, for an extreme example, if we had an article titled, "Le couleur rouge" in "Le Monde", with a quote, "J'aime cette couleur", we could potentially format it as:

• Tintin (2008-02-23). "Le couleur rouge (The color red)". Le Monde (The World). J'aime cette couleur (I like this color) {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Tintin (2008-02-23). "The color red (Le couleur rouge)". Le Monde. I like this color (J'aime cette couleur) {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

We could also try other styles, like adding the word trans or translation or something. Anyone have a preference? --Elonka 19:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the present one was done by Dumzibot or a similar sounding bot so it's probably not a good idea to try to do this by hand easier to ask the bot operator. Hobartimus (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Found the bot, [[7], user:DumZiBoT Hobartimus (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I read through it. What the bot appears to be doing, is simply a very limited search through the database. It changes "raw" links, such as http://www.google.com to very slightly more formatted links: [http://www.google.com Google], or Google. But that's definitely not a good final format. Many editors have asked if the bot could be adjusted to use the {{citation}} format, but the bot owner has declined. In any case, any articles affected by the bot which are going to want to be improved to Good or Featured level, are going to have their links expanded, either with citation templates, or in some other way.

Getting back to my above suggestions, my own leaning is to put the English translation first, followed by the other language in parentheses and italicized:

• Tintin (2008-02-23). "The color red (Le couleur rouge)". Le Monde. I like this color (J'aime cette couleur) {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Does that work for everyone? --Elonka 05:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the English translation should be in parentheses as the article has many English language sources now. This way it is easier for the reader to differentiate between English and non-English references at first look. Having the (sometimes only approximate) English translation first would suggest it is the original title.

BTW, should we include English translations of the titles at all? I don't know if there is a policy on that, but all over Wikipedia I mainly see the foreign version of titles without anything else if the reference is non-English.

Having quotes definitely improves the article, only the references section should remain transparent. Squash Racket (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is terribly inconsistent.  :) As for translations of article titles, I think that usually it's fine to just include the foreign-language version of the title, but as soon as an article gets into the realm of something controversial, that the references, like white blood cells, should start expanding.  :) The general rule of thumb on when to add sources at all, per WP:V, is "when information is challenged or likely to be challenged." So since this article appears to be ground-zero for many disputes, I think the sources and related quotes should be as strong as possible, and as understandable as possible to multiple readers. I have no idea what is the likelihood that any particular person speaks both Hungarian and Slovak, but I think it's a safe bet that most visitors to this page won't know one or both languages. I don't think it's necessary to provide quotes from every single reference (unless the information is challenged), but I would like to see more English translations of article titles. Your idea on putting the original article title first, followed by English makes sense, though could we compromise on the quote? I'd still like to see the English quote first, followed by the original text, because it makes it easier for an English-speaker's eyes to "track" to the English first, rather than wading through something they don't understand. Does that make sense? In other words:

• Tintin (2008-02-23). "Le couleur rouge (The color red)". Le Monde. I like this color (J'aime cette couleur) {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Thanks, Elonka 08:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

That version is OK I think.
Also I would like to point out I was referring to adding back Hungarian titles for the articles. Right now I could count only 4 sources (out of 42) without English titles. I had already translated the article titles, but when I saw the foreign titles in other articles, I didn't know if having these English translations is necessary.
There are about a dozen English language references, so if you speak English I think you will be able to verify most of the article, but even if not, speaking either Hungarian or Slovak should be sufficient. Still I support adding quotes for the facts that are not supported by an English language source.
Admin Ricky's intervention focused mainly on that article as you can see in talk page sections above and in the page history. Squash Racket (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)