Talk:Atlas of Slovakia

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Map deletions[edit]

VízPart, please explain why you removing these maps from the article. PANONIAN (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You are a chauvinist POV pusher, please stop your acts. Maybe you think you can push your extreme POV here, but no. VízPart (talk) 23:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. You removed maps from the article and you have to elaborate why you done that. Insulting of other users is not an explanation for your actions. PANONIAN (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
There is ample evidence on your talk page in the form of links to discussions about creating false maps and other forms of POV pushing in other words to the facts I stated above. For example [1] In fact who committed the personal attacks, was clearly you in edit summaries accusing others of vandalism in edit summaryVízPart (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
There is no any evidence that I am "creating false maps" or that I am "involved in POV pushing". Please stop insulting me and start discuss your deletions of files from this article. Also, as I explained, removal of files from atlases without explanation is a form of vandalism and you registered your nickname one day ago and your first edits here were deletions of files. Sorry, but everybody here would think that you are vandal because of that. PANONIAN (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I see that a map was proposed for deletion for being false. Clearly a lot of people agree that you are creating false maps, true or untrue? And you are very aggressive for someone who did that. Also its a lie that I deleteted files. I have no authorization to delete files, your lie has been noted. [2]VízPart (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Anybody can propose any map for deletion, but that is certainly not proof that map is "false". Several of my maps were proposed for deletion but none of them was deleted, which is proof that they are not "false". As for deletion, you deleted files from the article, not from the site, so please stop with these games. PANONIAN (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Way to resolve the problem[edit]

Ok, I will try to start discussion with you regarding each map that you removed from this article.

Map number 1[edit]

I understand that info in this map contradict with view of some Hungarian historians, but map itself is a valid historical view and also the one confirmed by modern genetical research (otherwise, modern Hungarians would not look as Europeans at all since original Hungarians belonged to mongoloid race). Also, the article already contains a map that represent a view of Hungarian historians about that same time period (I refer to this map: ) and the NPOV policy of this site require that we present all opposite views about various subjects, not only to push one single point of view. Finally, this is not article related to Hungary, but to Slovakia, and it would be totally POV to push only Hungarian view here and not to allow that view of historians from Slavic countries is presented. PANONIAN (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Maps number 2 and 3[edit]

I made these maps according to Hungarian source, see: - I do not understand why you removing it? PANONIAN (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Map number 4[edit]

This map was created by Hungarian user Qorilla. Why you removing it? PANONIAN (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed file descriptions[edit]

  • 1. Why you replaced description "Slovak lands in the Kingdom of Hungary in the 11th century" with "Kingdom of Hungary in the 11th century"? if yo did not noticed, this is atlas of Slovakia and that map show Slavic (Slovak)-inhabited lands in that time. PANONIAN (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • 2. Why you replaced description "Slavs (Slovaks) in the Kingdom of Hungary in the 13th century" with "Slavs in the Kingdom of Hungary in the 13th century" when it is clear that term "Slavs" from that map refer to ancestors of Slovaks in the terrotory of present-day Slovakia. Which other Slavs except Slovaks could live in Slovakia in that time? PANONIAN (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • 3. Why you replaced description "Habsburg Royal Hungary" with "Royal Hungary" when it is clear that Royal Hungary was a Habsburg province. Also, in the second map where you replaced description "Habsburg Royal Hungary" with "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom", you should see that this map show both these territories, and "Eastern Hungarian Kingdom" is not the one that included most of the territory of modern Slovakia. PANONIAN (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
All your points are null and void, when it is clear that the official name was Royal Hungary not a fantasy name made up by you. And there were no Slovakia in the 11th century that is pure fantasy land. Please stop with extreme POV pushing like this, this is not a place to live out your fantasies in descriptions. VízPart (talk) 11:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
It is not you but Wiki community that should reject or accept points that are presented by somebody. Also, here you can see that term "Habsburg Royal Hungary" is widely used in various sources: - the term "Royal Hungary" itself was not official name of Hungary in that time - official name was "Kingdom of Hungary" and terms "Royal Hungary" and "Habsburg Royal Hungary" were invented by Hungarian historians to notify the difference between that Hungary and "Great Hungary". However, we certainly do not have to use term "Habsburg Royal Hungary" - we can use instead "Royal Hungary within Habsburg Monarchy" or "Kingdom of Hungary within Habsburg Monarchy" (whatever). Also, what Slovakia in the 11th century you speak about? The disputed issue was mention of ethnic Slovaks not of Slovakia as a state. Also, regarding POV accusations do you have any specific proof that I am POV pusher or that I want to present or push certain points of view or ideas? PANONIAN (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What did others say about PANONIAN POV pushing?[edit]

Please see the following discussion about PANONIAN extreme POV pushing QOUTES:

  • On map are Serbia borders which has never been international accepted. Hungarian territory under Serbia occupation is shown like Serbian territory. Part of territory under occupation will be given to Romania, part will stay with Hungary and greatest part will be given to Serbia with peace agreements 1919/20. Simple speaking this map which show borders on 26 november 1918 is false so it must be deleted. More about that on talk page. —Rjecina 02:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
  • The whole point is that this is Serbia that "should have been" not "that was". In short this is not a historical map, Serbia never had these borders in reality nor it was recognized by them, Serbia joined with Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegoina to form Kingdom of Yugoslavia. --No.13 ( 19:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This map is not a historical map and shows borders of supposed Serbia that never was. --No.13 19:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • the map is misleading because Serbia never existed as a state shown here. 1918 demarcation lines weren't internationally recognized borders. Vojvodina, Baranya and Banat were occupied by the Serb army but borders were finalized in 1920 Trianon peace treaty along different lines. The map makes no distinction between demarcation lines and borders, occupied territories and recognized Serb territory. The creator refused any cooperation to improve the map which in present form seems Serb nationalist propaganda. 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC) User: Zello on ( )
  • It is truth that borders shown on map were not internationally recognized,
  • This map is absolutely not a historical map, this is a falsification. V79benno 22:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh, Mr. PANONIAN, if you really dont want to create a falsification, Hungarian territory under Serbian occupation must be indicated on the map properly, with clearly distinctive coloration. That's the end of story for any apparently normal adult human beeing... V79benno 13:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • (First: there's no need for proof that you are a POV-pusher, it's clear as the daylight, my dear, don't play games. Who else on Earth would spend so much time with hardly defending such a ridiculous falsification?! Oh, my God.) ... I wish you to find a better activity than this poor old game... You cannot change the past, but you can learn from it. :) It's never too late. V79benno 14:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • What a disgrace, this map is serbian propaganda and big falsification not a historical map. This map need to be deleted, soon as possible. -- Kingstone93 01:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • - falsification, not a historical map. Note that this is not the first time that we have false maps of Serbia. --Ante Perkovic 07:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: Everybody not familiar with the history of Central Europe should know that Pécs, Baja and Timisoara weren't recognized as part of Serbia in 1920 when international borders were finalized. Instead these areas became part of Hungary and Romania and their status never changed since then. The borders are recognized by the Serb government. The northern border shown here was never accepted by the international community. User: Zello 21:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This map is a clear fabrication, and an attempt at falsification of history. This map is born out of either complete ignorance of historical facts, or the desire to spread extreme propaganda, take your pick. Hamada2 12:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As Rjecina clearly explained, prime exemplar of panserbian propaganda. -- Ivan Štambuk 21:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I can understand that person which is not honest is always making questions about honesty of others but this is starting to be too much. This second time in 40 days (first time on wiki) that this user which support chetniks ideology, this PANONIAN question my honesty. Can please somebody block this misleading editor of commons and wiki. Be good PANONIAN and please do not question why I have writen misleading. -- Rjecina 14:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Fact is, that the Kingdom of Serbia as it is shown in this map, never existed. -- j.budissin+/- 09:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Map need to be deleted. Greatserbian propaganda. --Flopy 09:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless of the accuracy of the de facto borders in 1918, the caption of the picture is obviously POV: It says "unification" with Banat and Backa, while, clearly, it would be more accurate to say that Timisoara and Pecs were "occupied" at the time. Fossa 12:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • falsification, not a historical map . Why there are no Hungarian and Romanian users here? They'd also say something about this. Kubura 11:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • very big falsification, not a historical map. In 1st Dec. 1918 Timisoara was part of the Greater Romanian state. This map is false.--Wallak 15:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Map is great Serbian propaganda, made by a very dangerous Great Serbian Propagandist, Panonian. It shows occupied Croatian Territory as already part of Serbia in 1918, this is falsify of history, this land was stolen from Croatia by Serbs, and this was lawful Croat land in 1918 even if Serbian radicals gained control of the land in an illegal way. Illegal occupation is not the same as lands being lawfully part of one country. 18:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The Entente recognized the existence of the independent Hungary in the Belgrade Armistice. Of course you are right that they didn't recognize the 1914 borders with this act, this was never their intention. But similarly they didn't recognize the occupation lines as final borders of Serbia. The legal situation was the same for both countries: their existence was recognized but their desired borders were not. This map shows the Serb dream of Greater Serbia. You simply allotted the disputed territory to Serbia not taking into consideration that its status remained unresolved until 1920 when the real borders were only laid out and the Entente divided the disputed territory into three between the aspirant countries. Zello
  • I can only repeat the words of my honourable predecessor... V79benno 09:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The above is clearly relevant in showing that PANONIAN is POV pushing and engaging in PROPAGANDA not by my opinion but by a multitude of other users. And this abuse is going on since a long long time. Instead of hiding the facts PANONIAN should explain the facts. VízPart (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


You copy-pasted here selected statements and personal opinions from an closed deletion discussion about one of my maps that ended with KEEP conclusion, meaning that your „friends“ that posted their „opinions“ there did not proved their point. For the full picture here is the link to the entire discussion from that page, including my answers and opinions of other users that voted that image is kept: Also, users whose opinions about me or about my work you quoted are mostly not established or neutral editors of Wiki projects and almost half of your quotes came from sockpuppets that were created only for voting purpose. Here I made a full list of these users and sockpuppets, describing who or what they are: However, since this map is not used in this article, I do not see a point to discuss about its accuracy on this page. If somebody is further interested in this subject, I elaborated historical events in 1918-1920 time period here: So, if you tried to present a "negative picture" about me or nature of my work in general you obviously failed since selected quotes of statements given by sockpuppets in an deletion discussion whose result was that my map is kept is certainly not a proof for anything. So, if you finally decide to discuss about each image that you removed from this article I posted some questions for you in the discussion above - note that only part of the maps that you removed were made by me, so if you have an negative attitude towards me or my work, you still did not explained why you removed maps made by other users. PANONIAN (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that PANONIAN created a sock puppet when he was blocked. See these links for evidence: [3] [[4]] VízPart (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
As checkuser investigation presented to you there is no evidence that I have sockpuppets, so please comment the article, not other users. PANONIAN (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)