Talk:Gabčíkovo - Nagymaros Dams
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Slovakia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Slovakia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Hungary. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale. |
 Comments: |
|
[edit] Cleanup?
What reasons were there to use this tag?--Svetovid (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- The editor who placed the tag, Nmate (talk · contribs) is currently blocked, so you may wish to ask on his/her talkpage. If there is no reasonable reply within a couple days, go ahead and remove the tag. --Elonka 18:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I am copying the comments from Nmate, in case anyone would like to respond:
Because this is an Hungarian - Slovak common topic, but does not imply the Hungarian point of view at all.Nmate
1,The article does not deal with the antecedents of the contract.
2,Slovakia hurt Hungary's territorial integrity because diverted the boundary river to their own area.(Danube river more serious river than Wisła river because I saw the Wisła river in Warszawa.)
3,The article does not deal with the environment protection aspect at all.Nmate
I have also removed the "cleanup" template and replaced it with {{npov}}. Elonka 15:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- I also copy my comments made just after Elonka's copying here:
- Let me disagree with you on points 2 and 3.
- The mere fact of large amount of water divertion had no effect on territorial integrity of Hungary. The border has not changed at all, it is still old stream filled with water, albeit with less water. This was a matter of dispute before court as far as I know. On what do you base your claim?
- Article deals with ecology aspect in sentences "The argument against the dam was danger to the environment and to the water supply of Budapest." and "The threat of ecological catastrophe didn't materialize during the following years; on the contrary, the Danube floodplains surrounding the area have been saved from draining observed in the past." Of course, this is unsourced, but your claim of article not dealing with this is not true. Expansion of this would be surely helpful, I would even say that enviromental aspect would be worthy of own section later, after expansion of article.
- On general, however, I would not say the article is "poorly" written. Incomplete - why not, there are many facts missing there. --Ruziklan (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I feel an NPOV tag isn't justified enough so I removed it. Probably the article could use some expansion, but that's not equal to POV, or? 81.152.74.148 (talk) 12:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
"The article does not deal with the antecedents of the contract." That's not a POV issue. It needs expansion.
"Slovakia hurt Hungary's territorial integrity because diverted the boundary river to their own area." Personal opinion, AKA original research.
"The article does not deal with the environment protection aspect at all." Again, that's not a POV issue. Actually, the article touches that with: "The threat of ecological catastrophe didn't materialize during the following years; on the contrary, the Danube floodplains surrounding the area have been saved from draining observed in the past." This statement needs citation, but it's not a POV issue unless someone has a reliable source that doubts this.--Svetovid (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
So are there actually any POV issues or can the tag be removed?--Svetovid (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Split into 2 articles
The article should be split into two articles. One would be Gabčíkovo - Nagymaros project dealing with the initial project and the case in the International Court of Justice and the other would be Gabčíkovo Dam about the realized dam with two levels: Gabčíkovo and Čunovo.--Svetovid (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
