Talk:Hungary/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

History Section

I seriously think the history section should be cleaned up. The quantity of images is excessive. A while back I tryed to clean it up a little, but my edits were reverted. Someone needs to manage it. Samantha555 (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rongálás

EMBEREK VALKI EGY ÓVODAI hamis TÉRKÉPET TETT BE 998-as történelmi térképként (hungary in light blue), megjelölve számos akkor nem létező országot is létezőként / és egységes államként.

tegyetek be egy rendes normális középkori térképet!

PL EZT: http://www.emersonkent.com/images/europe_13th_century.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.3.187 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

17:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Valaki egy nagy halálfejes képet rakott be az oldal elejére,mellé odaírta, hogy merry christmas ,most vettem észre, szerencsére pont most ki is lett javítva.Ezek ellen nem lehet tenni semmit?

Csak azt, h kijavítod :) Zello (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo Gallery

Its very nice, very encylclopaedic when you consider one of the primary uses of this page is for foreigners to plan vacation ahead of travelling - pretty pictures of castles never hurt when you are tempting Japanese Americans and Aussies to stop in Hungary on their European tour... but it is very large, focuses on architecture (not necessarily bad) and has lots of "overhead" - the challenge here is to present it properly in the article.
Also, the pictures are very well done - good shots, plenty of resolution. It seems all are from the same person?? Very nice indeed. Does anyone have an idea of how best to present these in the article? Separate "photogallery" page with summary shots on the mainspace? István 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the gallery should be moved to Commons and only linked from here. Of course great inline pics can be very nice, but this is simply too much. -- nyenyec ☎ 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguably, the most beautiful man-made sight in the world is the view of Buda from Pest at night. If anyone could find a free-use shot which is as high-quality as these, then that should be featured - and quite prominently. I agree - a "Photo Gallery" of Hungary (I dont think its unfair to assist potential tourists in their research) prominently linked would be a good approach. István 14:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

George Demeny

Just stumbled on this while randomly timewasting at work: George_Demeny

I think it might be a hoax. The list of references is impressive but I don't think any of them refer to Demeny, while at least some of the text has been plagiarised from here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/index2.htm

There's also no obvious Google results for anyone called George Demeny in the Revolt, which seems strange if he really was a top commander. Maybe someone who knows the history of this in detail should check it out?

cheers, Moyabrit 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Hungary discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description

an expansion of the now-inactive and very small-scoped Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical Hungarian counties, using the original framework but expanding to include other things in this populous and unique European nation. There is an existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungarian culture, the national project would seek to cover other topics-politics, biography, flora and fauna... Chris 08:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro

This article would greatly benefit from better introduction. Please consider summarizing History and Politics sections into the lead if you have some knowledge of those issues. Thank you.--Pethr 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Independence again...

I've read most of the discussion above (except for the too small letters), and I think it would be best if we left out this whole Independence section. First, I don't even know how this section got into the infobox, since most countries were founded, not became independent. Second, right now the independence section in the infobox is not about independence at all, but about changes in the name of the state (államforma – couldn't find the English counterpart to this expression).

• 896, I guess, was supposed to be the year of the conquest of the area of present-day Hungary. In fact, it's impossible to assign only one year to this event. Based on astronomical calculations about the date of an eclipse that was mentioned in medieval sources 19th century astronomer Ferenc Lakits said that the conquest could not have been earlier than 891. He puts it between 894 and 898. Note that the area occupied was roughly the half of modern Hungary's area, and the western part of the country was still not fully occupied until 900. If we include this date, it should be either 900 or 894–900. The only reason why 896 is thought of as being the year of the conquest is that the millennium celebrations took place in 1896.
• The next date, the coronation of St. Stephen (which is in the old sources mentioned as having took place on the turn of 1000 and 1001, and the exact date is still debated...) is commonly called "the foundation of the state" and it could be accepted as that, but it's still not an independence date since the country has already been independent before that. It's hard to define what constituted as a state in medieval times, but if we define it as a nation living in a certain area with some kind of centralized government, then it was a state long before 1000, and Stephen's father Géza was a king in everything but name.
• 1918 is the first date which can be called an independence date but having only this one in the infobox would suggest Hungary has never been independent before.
• 1989 is completely irrelevant as an independence date. A state that has been independent since 1918 cannot become independent once more without losing its sovereign status first.

I think the best solution would be to remove the "Independence" section from the infobox, create a "Foundation" section, and, since we don't have any better dates, include 1000 as the commonly accepted foundation of the state (with explanations about it in the text of the article). – Alensha ^talk 15:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Infoboxes should contain official data. The offical foundation date of Hungary is 1000 according to the decision of the Hungarian Parliament. 2000/I törv. see the text here: http://www.complex.hu/kzldat/t0000001.htm/t0000001.htm Zello 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know there is a law about it :) It's cool that you already changed the infobox, I thought we have to ask one of the template-making wizards since it looks terribly complicated. Thanks! – Alensha ^talk 23:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"...most countries were founded, not became independent." Alensha, where the heck were you when we were all kicking each other's teeth out over who-knows-what a few months ago? ;-) Your post is a perfect summary of all the issues and misconceptions that had us yelling like lunatics but with the uneasy feeling that a point was being missed somewhere. Köszönöm szépen! K. Lásztocska 23:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm more busy now in huwiki with Ancient Egypt-related stuff. Just found out about this debate accidentally a few days ago. :) – Alensha ^talk 22:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

20 millions magyars

There are 20 millions magyars worldwide.--Székhu 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you count all the people who lived since about 1500AD... In reality there are only about 14 million currently living people, who can honestly be called "hungarians". Ten million and a few tens of thousands live in Hungary, some 3,5 millions live in neighbouring country and a lot went to USA, Australia, South America after the Great World Economic Crisis, the WWII and the 1956 uprising. Most descendants of those lost hungarian identity already. Due to the sharp population decline in Hungary, the country will only have 5 to 8 million magyar inhabitants by 2050, depending on how long the gipsy birth boom lasts. 91.83.3.66 (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would only like to argue with your last sentence: 2050 is a long way from here. It is impossible to state something like that with that much confidence. Zoli79 (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Transylvania

Shouldn't the history section say something directly about conflicting claims on, and possession of, Transylvania during the 20th Century, and describe Transylvania's pre-WWII ethnic composition? Sca 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right, however it's just an overview of the Hungarian history. I have another problem: II. Ferenc Rákóczi was born on the Felvidék (the name of the village is Borsi, the Rákóczi Mansion is being renovated right now) (what is the proper word for Felvidék in English?) and not in Transylvania. Someone who is competent, please correct it. [Coldfire]

Upper Hungary. Kope 08:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought about it, maybe Transylvania is okay because the origin of the family is substantially come from there. However, in the late 17. century, the family lost its Transylvanian territories and put its center to Upper Hungary. Just thought to mention because my eyes stuck on it. Have a nice day! [Coldfire]

Too many pictures, no need for gallery (here; maybe in Commons)

Section: Photos about the Hungarian countryside

Or is it only my opinion? --Cserlajos ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree absolutely – I told the user about it some time back and said so in an edit comment here too. Since there has been no reaction, I'll now remove the section. The images are inlined in this page anyway. KissL 08:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"The leaving Romanian army pillaged the country: livestock, machinery and agricultural products were carried to Romania in hundreds of freight cars. [22][23] The estimated property damage of their activity was so much that the international peace conference in 1919 did not require Hungary to pay war redemption to Romania.[citation needed] On November 16, with the consent of Romanian forces, Horthy's army marched into Budapest. His government gradually restored security, stopped terror, and set up authorities, but thousands of sympathizers of the Károlyi and Kun regimes were imprisoned. Radical political movements were suppressed. In March, the parliament restored the Hungarian monarchy but postponed electing a king until civil disorder had subsided. Instead, Miklos Horthy was elected Regent and was empowered, among other things, to appoint Hungary's Prime Minister, veto legislation, convene or dissolve the parliament, and command the armed forces."

When lies like this one are published, where are the supporting documents? Is this fiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.5.44.21 (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

New European vector maps

You're invite to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 12:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Micro-regions?

Below the county (megye) level, there is another layer of administration known as "kistérség". Is the best english equivalent of this the "micro-region"? This is what I have been able to find most prevelent on English-translated megye websites. I wish to know because I will soon create an article about this layer, to include all of the proper maps. Thank you. Rarelibra 21:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the translation "micro-region" - I can't find a better one either. --Cserlajos ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Central Statistical Office of Hungary publishes its official yearly gazetteer in Hungarian and English. Thus English terminology of administrative division and units is well-defined.

See http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/eng/other/hnk2006/tartalom.html

CSO uses the term subregion rather than micro-region.

--peyerk 16:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hierarchy of administrative units - counties and subregions

Hungary has a multilevel administrative division. Some levels are more important than others, some levels are real functioning general purpose local governments, others are not. NUTS and LAU form a useful system to describe the hierarchy.

On NUTS 1 level there are 3 macro-regions. These are not administrative units in any sense, instead they are only for statistical purposes.

On NUTS 2 level there are 7 regions. These are not general-purpose administrative units but many national goverment agencies are organized on this basis just like regional development councils which are bilateral bodies of national and local governments.

On NUTS 3 level we have 20 units. 19 of them are counties and one is the capital city of Budapest. These are local governments with elected councils and functioning administration. This means Hungary is not divided into counties - only Hungary except Budapest is.

On LAU 1 level there are 168 subregions. Budapest is one of them and the counties are divided into 167. Thus we cannot say counties are divided into 168 subregions - in fact the country (i.e. counties and Budapest) is. Subregions are not general purpose local governments rather they are obligatory cooperation framework for local governments for some issues. They have no directly elected bodies nor officials but they have a representative body comprising mayors of municipalities and a president elected by this body.

--peyerk 12:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We can state that the counties are divided into 167 subregions, and Budapest is its own subregion. It isn't a matter of whether or not a local administrative unit has elected bodies or not (that is described in the article for that unit). The fact remains that underneath the counties are subregions... even Budapest is its own subregion as you pointed out to me earlier. Rarelibra 16:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes.

--peyerk 08:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Heat Wave

It killed up to 500 people.

--Florentino floro 04:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hungary or Hungaria

Is the country called Hungaria or Hungary? Why would it called Hungary if all the other countries are called "ia" like Bulgaria, Nigeria, etc.?

That's the way it is, period. Rarelibra 15:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think that's absurd in English, look at German! Why Bulgarien (Bulgaria) and Libyen (Libya), but Ungarn (Hungary) and Lettland (Latvia), but Nigeria and Malaysia?? --Kuaichik 05:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well, it's actually "Magyarország", but since no one but a Magyar can pronounce that, we let people say "Hungary." (it is "Hungaria" in some other languages.) And btw, Kuaichik, have you noticed how Deutschland always ends up with the most random names in other languages? "Germany" is far enough afield, but then there's "Nemetország", "Tyskland" (I believe that is Norwegian), "Allemagne"...eh what?! K. Lásztocska 14:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You think that is weird, you should see what I ate for dinner last night. :) Rarelibra 16:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes "all other countries are called "ia"" like France, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, United States, Italy, Spain, Turkey, etc. yes every country ends in "ia" it seems. You know you're in trouble when your best example is 'Nigeria' :) Hobartimus 06:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

But note that while the adjective for France is French, for Germany is German, for Japan it is Japanese, BUT for Hungary it is Hungarian!

But boys and ladies, let's be serious about this. Notice that if you type "Hungaria" in Wikipedia it will be redirected to "Hungary". But if you type "Germania" it will NOT be redirected to "Germany". There must be a reason in English grammar for calling "Magyarország", Hungary instead of Hungaria. Or some historical reason. This is an encyclopaedia, things should be explained here.

Maybe you should take into account why "Germania," as you said, "will NOT be redirected to 'Germany'." Germania was a part of the Roman Empire. There was no such thing as "Hungaria" at the time; Hungary was made up of parts of the provinces Pannonia and Dacia.

Country-related adjectives are generally irregular in European languages, no? --Kuaichik 06:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not simply to admit that Hungary is a wrong traslation? It could have easily be wrongly traslated years ago, and then taken for granted. Hm?

Why not stopping kiddish wasting of time, dear neversigning friend? Hm?

--peyerk 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - Peyerk is right, you are wasting time discussing something that is rather moot. The fact that it redirects is simply to ensure that misspellings/misgnomers, etc are redirected to the proper place. Why not argue about, say, why they decided to change the name from "New Amsterdam" to "New York"? Why not argue why we didn't grow up on Mars instead of Earth? It would be just as wasteful and amusing. Rarelibra 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then, if nobody minds, I would like to post a reply. Hungary isn't a "wrong translation," no more than Germany is a "wrong translation" of Deutschland. Different languages may name countries quite differently, based on what their speakers perceive of the country. Often, when in doubt, speakers name a country using the most easily accessible foreign language. ("Germany," for instance, may come from Latin "Germania" because English-speakers thought of Germany as essentially former Germania, not as the "land" of the "Dutch"-speaking people...where "Dutch" has the older, more general meaning). --Kuaichik 05:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone does have an objection to me posting this reply, I will gladly remove it from here :) --Kuaichik 05:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Blind reverts of User:Irishguy

This user is incapable of understanding that this article is huge enough. --Phone1010 11:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting content. IrishGuy ^talk 11:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The long template suggests splitting the article into sections, not deleting content. And it already is split into sections. Why doesn't Phone1010 discuss such major changes on the talk page? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The {{long}} template is badly worded at that point. Sections of long articles need to be split out of the article, as explained by the linked page.

If you look carefully at the history, you'll see that Phone1010 did not remove any of the prose but just merged consecutive paragraphs and removed headings in between. (I'm not saying that this was an improvement to the article, but it certainly is different from "removing content" and does deserve discussion before, or along with, a revert, even though Phone1010 should have started a discussion himself.)

Phone1010 violated WP:NPA (above) and WP:3RR, while IrishGuy violated WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK (because he blocked a user with whom he had a content dispute) and most likely also WP:BITE (depending on whether or not Phone1010 is a newcomer, which he certainly looks). I don't know who Phone1010 is, but I think administrators should know policies much better than this. KissL 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

World War I

Did somebody forget the section on WORLD WAR ONE? The grammar is terrible. Look at the following "In First World War Hungary was fighting on the side of Austria. Hungarian troops were fighting against Russians near Premsyl, in Caporetto, where they were thought to be very reliable and been on the forefront, also, Hungarians have pushed back Romanian forces from Transylvania. In 1918, by a notion of Wilson's pacifism, the army of Hungary was dismissed, leaving the country undefended."

That's the entire section. Could somebody with a fourth grade education or above please put BACK the section on Austria-Hungary's involvement in WWI, which was huge? That would be great, thanks.

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian Americans. Badagnani 18:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Military of Hungary

someone forgot to add this page to main entry for Hungary --Mrg3105 08:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Cuisine

The cuisine bit is almost entirely copied from http://www.budapesthotels.com/touristguide/food.asp. Nagy Zsolt, a rep from the page wrote me: "You are most welcome to use the page. Regards, Zsolt". Gregorik (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Permission

Permission granted by budapesthotels.com rep to cite freely: "Persze, nyugodtan! Köszönettel: Nagy Zsolt" Gregorik (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Gregorik, a simple use permission is not sufficient to copy something to Wikipedia, because the GFDL licence that Wikipedia uses also allows users of Wikipedia (and their users, etc.) to reuse the same material, which may or may not correspond with the original owner's intentions. You need to specifically ask for a permission to release the material under the GFDL, explaining the above. (Feel free to send me an e-mail if you need further clarification.) KissL 10:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: NO WAY. List of the administrative divisions and of the public hollydays should not be on the main page of a country. Introduction is way too long. History might not be too long, but it is obviously overrepresented in the article (i.e. this article is not entitled History of Hungary).

2. Factually accurate?: It is GROSSLY underreferenced. There a lot of places where there is one reference for an entire subsection. I guess means it fails to be factually acurate

3. Broad in coverage?: There is nothing about education. Economy section barely gives some information (come on, it is a member of EU, it must have something relevant)

4. Neutral point of view?:

5. Article stability?

6. Images?: the article almost abuses the use of images. The images should be relevant more than a little to the subsection.

Please check other articles on countries that are allready a GA.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Points taken, though intro is obviously fine as it is, sorry. Gregorik (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible Hungary project

Anyone interested in a dedicated group, which is initially proposed to begin as a task force, dedicated to improving content relating to the nation of Hungary is more than welcome to indicate their interest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Hungary work group. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea, because i believe this article and others related to hungary really need a help, so I would be more than happy to participate--Philip200291 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The purpose for this proposal is to basically create a group dedicated to Hungary which would also have separate assessments, and thus a separate "statistics" page which they could use to help determine which articles might merit the most focused energy, pretty much the same as any other WikiProject. The reasons why I proposed it as a task force of Europe are basically two:

• (1) There has been a lot of attention recently to the fact that some talk pages have far too many banners, and that the presence of all those banners is becoming a bit of a distraction. By consolidating in as a work group, although probably with the WikiProject Hungary name, if I can arrange the banner to permit that, using the same project banner, that question can be bypassed in this case. In fact, in the near future I'm going to try to persuade some of the other European nation WikiProjects whose banners don't include separate assessments to do the same thing. Of course, the members of the Europe Project would have to agree to the arrangement as well, but I doubt there will be many objections from them in this regard.
• (2) I'm guessing that the Hungary project would want to include in its scope all the articles relating to the history of Hungary, including a lot of articles related to the old Hungarian Empire, whose boundaries extended well beyond current Hungary. Unfortunately, politically, it might not be such a good idea to place the Hungary banner on an article about some territory which is sensitive about it's current national identity. However, I would think that the same reservations would not necessarily be had about placing a banner which more visibly says it is related to Europe, and only on the bottom, like with the Australian banner on Talk:Sydney, for example, indicates which "descendant" projects also deal with it. If that set up were used, then I think the "blow" of the Hungary tag might be reduced, and there should be fewer objections to its presence. John Carter (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The term Magyar - delete, keep or rewrite?

Someone (only IP address known, from Budapest) deleted the whole section about the term "Magyar", then user Milk's Favorite Cookie restored it. I was first surprised, but actually I agree with the deletion. I believe Magyar and Hungarian means exactly the same thing. What are the differences between the terms written in this article based on? No references are given. I might be wrong on believing the word Hungarian also refers to the ethnicity, not just the people living in a multi ethnic country Hungary once was. This dilemma (same word for citizenship and ethnicity) must be similar in other nation states. But if I am wrong, please give references. Zoli79 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind IPs often delete portions of articles as vandalism. An outsider without knowledge of an area may assume that the reason for deletion is simple vandalism. The solution is to simply endorse the deletion by a revert so they no longer think it's an IP vandalism. Hobartimus (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I get that part, but the problem is, that I don't know whether the frequent usage of Magyar(s) here on WP is correct or not. For me this deletion served as an excuse to bring up the topic. I have an opinion on that, but that's far away from an official or scientific point of view. References would really be needed... Zoli79 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not really correct but sometimes it's used. It's enough to know that Hungarian is correct. If you want to emphasize origins you say "ethnic Hungarian", the problem with magyar that it is a magyar word and English speaking people have enough trouble already with trying to place Hungary somewhere on the map etc. If you try to use 'magyar' in a sentence talking to an US citizen for example you will likely fail miserably. Hobartimus (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote that chapter, packing it with references. I hope it's OK in this form. If not, feel free to correct. Zoli79 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's good but it's place is in a different article maybe Hungarians there is no need to discuss terms in a main country article at all. Use Hungarian normally, ethnic Hungarian when you want to say something specific that is the standard English usage. You asked for opinions to delete keep or rewrite I see that this is getting complicated with your rewrite so I'll cut it short and state my opinion delete. Hobartimus (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe before deleting it, we could discuss the matter. I spent some time on researching that matter, you know, and simply deleting it with no previous notice doesn't seem wright in my book...

As for your point: I think this is an important aspect, concerning the country, since it's the word describing its people. And if there's a controversy in English on that matter than it should be clarified. I don't think it was long enough, to bother the whole article. The other reason why I find it important to clarify these terms is that both of them are used in it, causing confusion. Zoli79 (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt it was a deletion but I didn't delete it actually, it's in the history if you want I can copy it to the Hungarians article right now it's a very easy process. You were the one that brought the whole issue up so you were the one asking for opinions but you just did a rewrite anyway after the original material was removed. You are right that these terms are used but the solution is not to give a long explanation to every term we use that's why we have other articles for god's sake, imagine if we write a long explanation on the terms Crown Kingdom Parlaiment Democracy Prime Minister etc etc etc they are all used in the article. I agree with you completely that currently both terms being used can cause issues the solution is to remove most of the uses that can cause problems with understanding and readability and unifiy standardize usage at least within the article. Hobartimus (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote that section instead of deleting it, because we did not come up with a solution on the question rewriting, or deletion. So I thought the best would be to keep the original structure, but clean up the content. I brought up the issue originally, because of the chapter's incorrect content, not because I felt the theme is irrelevant in its context.

Anyway, you may be right. If you have a good suggestion on where to fit it (e.g. Hungarian people), I'm willing to move it. As I wrote above, a part of me still suggests to keep it here, since it deals with a unique and important case regarding the country's inhabitants, which is just as important as its history or culture. There are many other topics that are dealt with in the general Hungary article and still have their own article. Zoli79 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you that as a temporary solution, move the section from the start of the History section to the end of the History section within the article. As you wrote it I don't want to do this re-ordering. This would be a thing to do until we clean up this article unify usage and the section can be moved to Hungarians. Hobartimus (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I moved it over there. Now that is a place it definitely does not belong, but I accept it as a temporary solution. This article definitely needs some clean up on the long run. :) Zoli79 (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Three non indo european official EU languages?

"The official language is Hungarian also known as Magyar, part of the Finno-Ugric family, thus one of the three official languages of the European Union that is not of Indo-European origin." Maltese, Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian are all non indo european, maltese is semetic, and the others are finno-urgic. That makes four. Unless I'm mistaken what the official languages are. If I'm correct please amend the article :). - järnspöken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.240.178 (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! Zoli79 (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are totally right...--Philip200291 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Budapestdailyreview.com - external link

Anonymus users (I guess the editors of budapestdailyreview.com) added an external link containing photos from Budapest [1]. I removed the link, then they put it back and now we are developing a nice revert war [2], [3], [4], [5].

I think the link should be removed because:

1. the photos only show Budapest, not the whole country,
2. the photos are not typical images from Hungary, they can mislead the reader who may think that this is what Hungary looks like.

Please write here your opinion on the subject. Also, please answer the obvious question, if the link should be included in the Budapest article (I think not, because reason #2). Thanks! --Hu:Totya (talk!) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? --Hu:Totya (talk!) 13:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite their being very good photos from an aesthetic POV, I would agree they are not proper for Hungary, nor Budapest to an unfamiliar reader. Not being an unfamiliar reader, however, I do recognize Bp in the photos - even get somewhat nostalgic - but that is not the same as introducing or describing the city to someone who has never been there before (descriptive yet not informative). It's like the airport signage dilemma - airport signage is installed by people who already know where everything is - it might be descriptive but does not help unfamiliar people find their way. We must write for unfamiliar people, and these photos don't speak to them in the same way. István (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please give your opinion about Proposal II which will define Central Europe

Give your support or opposition at the Central Europe talk page, since we are looking for a single definition for it. It's very important. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all that participated and gave their opinion on Proposal II.

Proposal II was approved, 13 editors supported it and 5 editors opposed it. Proposal II is now in effect and it redefined Central Europe. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Spa Culture just an advertisement?

Is it just me, or does the Spa Culture section basically read like an tourist advertising pamphlet ? I respect that Hungary has some interesting thermal lakes, and some excellent historical spas and baths, but it seems to me that this section could really used a solid cleaning. phrawzty (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Demographics section

I will work on the section "Demographics" based on the layout of the respective sections in the articles Germany, France, Romania etc. Squash Racket (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Centre

"The Kingdom of Hungary ... at various points was regarded as one of the cultural centers of the Western world."

Is there citation or room for expansion available here please?

Tomscambler (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Map of user "Dajes13"

Despite a perfectly accurate and internationally accepted map of Europe, user "Dajes13" continues to impose his own homemade maps on this page. This is unacceptable.

1. A vast majority of the world does not recognize Kosovo as independent from Serbia. The UN and all the other international organizations do not recognize Kosovo as separate either.

2. A map that includes an independent Kosovo goes directly against the spirit of Wikipedia's own article on Kosovo, which recognizes Kosovo as de jure part of Serbia.

Therefore, I warn user "Dajes13" that if he continues to replace the official wikipedia map of Europe with his own homemade maps that display a clear political agenda, I will report him to the proper Wikipedia authorities.

--A.Molnar (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing discussions from talk page

First of all it's against WP policies from what I understand, second if it's obviously not against the WP policies (spam or insulting material) it shouldn't be removed only becaue you don't like the content -- that has a specific name: "censorship" and I would be sad to see this on Wikipedia. Thanks. man with one red shoe (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TALKPAGE:

Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. Talk pages are useful such that they may contain information that is not on the article, but such information is often unverified and thus unreliable. Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

(Bolding not mine.) Squash Racket (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The two discussions above are about the material in the article, this seems reasonable for me (even though I don't agree with the rants), if you want you can rebuke or just ignore them, but simply removing things that you don't like should not fly on Wikipedia as long the discussions are about the article. Besides, if you look in this very page there are many other opinions, it's not only referenced material, however, only discussions that don't seem to appeal to Hungarian nationalists are removed, that's as I said, censorship. man with one red shoe (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

These are not "discussions", because I don't see answers. Even though you don't agree with those, you keep readding them multiple times. I won't remove them, but I wouldn't judge those who do, because the WP guideline (not policy) seems to support their view. Where else did you see similar personal views and who objected against removing those? Hungarian nationalists? Squash Racket (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

They talk about how sources are interpreted, it's a legitimate content in any talk page from what I can gather. man with one red shoe (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see them mentioning any sources... Squash Racket (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I said, they talk about how sources are interpreted in the article, for example one starts with "I'd like to note, that there is a important mistake in an article", you can say "no, this is not a mistake" you can ignore it but removing it is simply censorship. man with one red shoe (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And I think you didn't understand parts of these comments were inflammatory, offensive and that is NOT supported on WP. But as I said I won't remove them, though I fully understand those who do. Squash Racket (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Inflamatory because they don't agree with your POV (because otherwise they seem reasonable civilized)? So basically what you are supporting here is removing discussions that don't agree with your specific POV. That's the exact point of censorship. man with one red shoe (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If the throwaway IP/account uses an offensive wording, then they won't encourage a cooperative attitude. If someone deliberately uses phrases that he knows are offensive (besides being POV) that won't encourage an answer which would be the goal of an article talk page. That's why I think it is you who still doesn't understand what's the problem here. Squash Racket (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think that anonymous contribution on Wikipedia should be banned (but this is a personal opinion) as long as Wikipedia accepts anonymous contribution you can't remove something that you don't like on the basis that's added by an anon IP. Principles... strange things, aren't they? man with one red shoe (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Principles strange things...aren't they?

True. Only I cited the guideline, you cited your opinion about what may be removed and what not... Squash Racket (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles" I fail to see how thise discussions are not about the content of the article. See editing others' comments I don't think there's anything there that says that you can edit (or even more, remove) the comments of others because you don't like their point of view. man with one red shoe (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is here for discussion on how to improve the article. So far you made unrelated comments here, soapboxed, used it as a forum to discuss general wiki-wide issues like generalities regarding all talkpages. The only purpose of this talk page is suggestions on improving the article, rants and soapboxing are routinely removed, this thread will also be removed after it's conclusion. If you don't like it you can keep reverting and face the consequences, anyhow this is not the place to discuss it. Hobartimus (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I discuss about something relevant to this talk page, not generalities. Content from this talk page is removed, you should not remove other people's comments as long as they are not against the rules only because you don't like their point of view. That's it. Stop threatening me (including on my talk page), if you have a problem with what I say or do take it with an admin. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages).
• Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments before removing anything.

Just an example: a "revisionist writing this article" is uncivil and directly attacking editors instead of inviting them for discussion. I hope you see that. I checked out WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages and I do NOT think these comments are compliant with it.
But: these are just guidelines, just like WP:TALKPAGE. Squash Racket (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• So, is this not relevant to improving the article? Is this a personal attack or exhibits incivility? On which ground do you support removing this comment?

I'd like to note, that there is a important mistake in an article, in part “The land before AD896” and “Medieval Hungary”. From around 5th -6th century, the territory of modern-day Slovakia and Hungary was settled by slavic tribes – Old Slovaks. Samo's Empire was here in the 7th century. A Slavic state, known as the Principality of Nitra, arose in the 8th century and its ruler Pribina had the first known Christian church in central Europe consecrated by 828. Pribina's next residence was in Blatnohrad ( castle next to Balatón ). Together with neighboring Moravia, the principality formed the core of the Great Moravian Empire from 833. The high point of this Slavonic empire came with the arrival of Saints Cyril and Methodius in 863, during the reign of Prince Rastislav, and the territorial expansion under King Svatopluk I. Mojmír II was the last king of the Great Moravian Empire . After the disintegration of the Great Moravian Empire in the early 10th century, the Hungarians gradually annexed the territory of the present-day Hungaria and Slovakia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.196.82 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough history to appreciate the truth value of this paragraph, if it's not true you can ignore it or you can show where the problem is, I still don't find anything in the guidelines that can apply to edit or remove this comment. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a strange feeling that you are not here for anything else but to disrupt and you for some odd reason looking to start a fight here. If you would be right in your interpretation of the policies there would be plenty of other people who agree with you and the issue resolve itself. Instead you constantly edit war, abuse automated tools to do it, now open a thread after it was clearly pointed out that the talk page is only for discussing improvements, you make a point to discuss anything but improvements, you never suggested a single change, improvement to the article never even displayed an interest in the article and while you add no value you are wasting other's time with your edit warring. After a point this will need to stop. Hobartimus (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the somewhat distorted history of the territory now known as Slovakia (according to a POV). It still doesn't seem to be compliant with WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages on this talk page.

BTW Hobartimus is right, that thread should be removed from here if you don't mind as it is not improving this article and is about general issues. Squash Racket (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look in the history the last revert was not done by me, so there are other people who agree with my point of view. Second, this is not about me, please stop talking about my person or I will consider this a personal attack. As for automatic tools, I simply didn't know that it marks the revert as "minor" I certainly didn't have the intention to fly under the radar, I clearly explained in the edit summary why I reverted and I opened this discussion too to make it clear that everybody knows. But let's get to facts, why would you remove the quote that I posted above, on which ground? To me it looks perfectly legitimate comment in a talk page. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Having an opinion is one thing I have opinions myself but there is a difference in simply having an opinion and suddenly starting edit wars and threads. You never expressed an interest in this article, never improved it yet you come here to edit war over whether to remove trolling or not (you yourself used "trollish" as the description for the comments). What are your reasons for this? What is your sudden interest in keeping those "trollish" comments at such an effort. You devoted more energy/edits to this than anything else in the past few days, certainly more than to article improvement, it is only fair that we'd like some explanation regarding your actions here. You say this is not to "start something" I believe you if you say so (though thus far you refused to state it, only that it's "not about you") if that's not the case, what is? What the reason for your extraordinary interest in using this talk page for anything but the improvement of the "Hungary" article? And you do this after all policies were cited and clearly showed that you act against the rules? Hobartimus (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's simply not true, take a look, a simple example: [6] And please stop judging my motivations, this is not about me, this is about removing comments from talk page. BTW, I posted this to Admin's notice board, I'd like and admin to take a look at this discussion and this removal of comments issue, let's wait for other opinions. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Again you escalating the issue shows that you have some strong reason, strong motive for doing this. If you read the comment carefully you will realize that nobody is "judging your motivations" I am asking, what is your motivation? It was asked now multiple times and you refuse to answer the question, what is your reason for wanting to keep comments at such trouble that you yourself described as "trollish"? Hobartimus (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I expressed my motivations in the first post in this thread and in the edit summaries, I'm against censorship, I don't think that removing a comment that you don't agree with is anything else but censorship. You might have different motives and I won't ask you about yours in a challenging way, I just expressed my opinion that this is censorship and it shouldn't happen, if an admin says otherwise I will cease the discussion immediately. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So you say that removing "trollish" comments is censorship? You yourself call them "trollish". Did you read any of the Wikipedia policies our guidelines regarding this question? Did any of them say to post "trollish" comments that have nothing to do with improving the article? Did the guidelines and policies say that the preferred procedure is to edit war to repeatedly reinsert said "trollish" comments, start a long discussion unrelated to improving the article, bring the question to admins [7] and noticeboards [8] in order to achieve keeping the "trollish" comments? Did any of the policies and guidelines say that? Do you feel the article was improved in this long process that you followed through? Hobartimus (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the right to have opinions about comments, however I don't have the right to impose my opinions on others. That's what you don't seem to undestand about censorship, I have the right to think that some things are shitty, I don't have the right to impose my yardstick on others, and by the way if similar comments were made in talk:Romania or talk:Slovakia claiming that the articles have anti-Hungarian bias and I don't know what facts are not accurate, I would have the same position. Again, it's principle, you don't delete other people's posts. Period. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Again you state your personal opinion on "princpile" and "censorship" but you have failed to produce the wikipedia guideline that says that one should insert "trollish", unrelated comments into talk pages. I asked if you read the wikipedia rules on the subject but you have not answered the question. Is there anything in any guideline, any material at all that supports keeping trollish comments on talk pages? Anything that supports your interpretation? Hobartimus (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I provided the guideliness for when you can modify other people's posts, in those guidliness there's is no such thing as "you can remove posts that you don't agree with". I made my case, I will not respond to other questions, I will wait for an admin to weigh it. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion that your approach is not reasonable. What I mean is when looking at your contributions at the time I write this comment almost all of them in the last few weeks are dedicated to this issue of keeping inappropriate comments here that you admit are "trollish". Hobartimus (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that a talk page item that addresses the article but offends others, still should be left here. This is not just a two-editor issue. As far as offensive attacks, there are other means to address those issues, short of deleting the entire post which has useful information in it. Wikipedia dislikes censorship worse than attacks. Having said that, a discussion item that is designed mainly offend someone and is not germane to the article should be removed. That is different from the material above, however IMO. Student7 (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia dislikes censorship worse than attacks." Not true. WP:TALKPAGE is a guideline, WP:NPA is a policy. But even WP:TALKPAGE clearly states:

Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views

. Squash Racket (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion ran it's course this will need to be dealt with the usual way. When someone posts vandalism, trolling inappropriate content whatever first they are told not to then gently warned then warned etc etc. It doesn't matter if you write it yourself, copy from a messageboard or copy somewhere else, when you post something you ultimately post it, you are responsible for it's contents. Hobartimus (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Student7 (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

As a general guideline, it is not desirable to remove material from a talk page (see WP:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments) unless, of course, the comments are obvious vandalism. Further, it does not matter whether the editor is an IP or a logged-in user. Wikipedia does not distinguish between the two for article building purposes. If you disagree with comments on the talk page, you can respond appropriately or choose to ignore them (the latter is probably more appropriate in this case). Regards and thanks for requesting a third opinion!

• Deleting material not relevant to improving the article
• Removing personal attacks and incivility

These two were somehow left out from the valid deletion reasons, but I found them at the link provided. It also makes clear that the removable category is much broader than "obvious vandalism". Hobartimus (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Except in the case of obvious vandalism, it is generally impolite to delete material from the talk page (note that these are guidelines, not policy). While I agree that wikipedia is not a forum is a valid reason to be piqued by material such as the one in question, frankly, ignoring the material, or politely rebutting it, would have saved a whole lot of bandwidth and not prompted an edit war on the talk page. Deleting talk page content almost always leads to inflamed tempers, which is never a good thing. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Map

I had a little controversy with the user Squash Racket concernig this map. More precisely: we couldn't agree about the description of the map. See here the 2 versions:

1) Squash Racket's version: Ethnic map of Hungary (without Croatia) taking population density into account (census 1910)

2) My (Olahus's) version: Linguistic map of Hungary according to the 1910-census (without Croatia; the areas with a low population density are not represented)

I have some objections concerning Squash Racket's version because this map doesn't definately look like a population density map. A population density map represents all the areas, showing at the same time how many persons live per square mile or square kilometer in all the areas represented in the map. This map represents only the areas with a density that is higher than a certain limit. See here how density map looks like. Or see here a population density and ethnic map at the same time. --Olahus (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, it represents all people so , all people from all areas are represented and their weight in the map equals exactly to their weight. The whole issue is quite complex best to leave detailed explanation to another article, this is a summary article. In a short caption "proportional representation of the 1910 census" because if say Germans were exactly 10% in the census they are exactly 10% in the map everyone is accurately represented. Hobartimus (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The usage of the term "proportional" is a good proposal. But let us talk about the necessity of the "red map". Why is this map necessary, if the author intended to represent the proportion? Proportions are represented in charts. This charts are saying more that the "red map". The necessity of a map is to make a visual representation of an area. Or, the "red map" deforms the reality by presenting "empty areas" in order to maintain a certain proportion - a duty of a chart not of a map. Not to say about the colouts chosen by the author: a strong nuance of red for the Hungarians, a pale nuance of violet for the Rumanians, a pale orange for the Germans, a pale green for the Slovaks... --Olahus (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Olahus' version because the map has blank spots. Btw, sorry for the mess of late reverts, I reverted myself only find out that somebody else tried to add something and then when I tried to correct I found again in the same situation. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"The areas with a low population density are not represented)", that is simply NOT TRUE. That's the problem here. They are represented together with the nearest densely populated area.
The other map suggests the Treaty of Trianon established the borders along ethnic lines, so readers will have a problem understanding how do about 1.5 million Hungarians live in Romania's territory nowadays. Squash Racket (talk) 06:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem I think those 1.5 million (or how many they were at that time) are represented in that map, aren't they? The actually problem is that from the other map with many blank spaces you won't figure out that Romanians were actually a large majority in Transylvania (more than 3 million at that time), would you? (or that's the point...) man with one red shoe (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

According to a National Geographic Hungary article, during the Trianon negotiations the Italian delegation advised to use the Red Map, but the Hungarian delegation did that too late, because they had wanted to restore the original borders of the Kingdom.

Romanians didn't have a majority, because we present the highest mountains as populated as plains and cities, don't you think? The other map is a bit misleading, because it suggests very clear ethnic lines which wasn't the case. Squash Racket (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The map from 1880 is not misleading, because it looks like almost every other ethnic map. The unusual map is the "red map". Explain me please: WHERE are localities from the "white blotches"? The exact proportion of each ethnic group is represented in a CHART like this one, where you can see exactly the proportion of each ethnicity. The "red map" is a nationalist ethnic map because it was thought to favourize the Hungarians, who lived mostly in regions with a high populations density. The meaning of this map was to find a criteria to exclude as possible the areas with a non-Hungarian population and the author find a "good one": he didn't represent the areas with a low population density. Of course, they are also some Hungarian-populated areas recorded as a "withe spot", like Hortobagy or Bükk. But the most disadvantaged ethnic groups are the minorities, who lived in the mountaineous regions: the Slovaks, the Ruthenians (Ukrainians) and the Romanians. PS: I must admit that I have never else seen an other ethnic map like the Red map. No wonder: such maps, like the Red map are not accepted between the scientists.--Olahus (talk) 18:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you made good points about the Red map, using a map that favors high population density and using blanks for areas with low densities is clearly an unbalanced way to present information, I've also didn't see such kind of map in any other page on Wikipedia (that I visited of course) man with one red shoe (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The red map is famous, notable in it's own right and relevant in the context of the "History of Hungary". The other map is unknown, non-notable it is clearly just some map you like and uploaded and pushed for it's inclusion into a large range of articles. It will not work, please stop before someone looks up all the edits from various users and IPs that inserted that very map that you uploaded and investigate all the edits that inserted the map into a large range of articles continuusly for months. Hobartimus (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Veiled threats don't scare anybody, who cares what IPs where used for editing/adding the map, do you accuse me or Olahus for doing something against WP rules, if you do so please provide proof and ask and admin to take a look, otherwise please stop the insinuations now. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No need to mischaractherize anything, for some reason he is too much involved with that particular map and is making unreasonable efforts to include it in every article and their sister articles. This could backfire IF there is indeed such a pattern. Olahus knows full well if there is, or there is not such a pattern. No need for you or anyone to get involved without any knowledge of the actual situation. Hobartimus (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"please provide proof and ask and admin to take a look" you also seem to misunderstand, the whole idea here. I have no problem with Olahus' editing apart from a very few edits ,mainly map related. Why would anyone would want to make a small issue into a big issue if it can be avoided? Please do not make such suggestions, we are way under the level here that would need any such proof gathering and other clear over reaction like that. Olahus edits a lot of topics some Moldova related some others and to my knowledge he does so without any problems. Hobartimus (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobartimus, if you suspect me of editing with varois ip's , please request a checkuser from the administrators. Concerning the map presented by me: it is not an unknown mao. Okay, you never heared about that map, but it doesn't mean that the rest of the world didn't it. The map was published in Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen, the oldest German professional geographical journal. The author of the map was Ignaz Hátsek, the Royal Hungarian cartograph (as mentioned in the map: Königl. ung. Kartograph). He made a map that fully concorded to the 1880 census results. The map made by him is a complete map, it doesn't exclude the areas with a low population density (like the "red map" does). The Red map is not objective and it was created to influence the reader for the benefit of the Hungarian nationalist point of view. And now a question to all the sustainers of the "Red map": if you think that the Hungarians are disadvantaged by a usual ethnic map because the Hungarians lived in dense populated areas, take here an ethnic map created on administrative units. As you can see, the result is the same: Hungarians were in most of the counties a minority, not a majority. The "Red map" only manipulates the census results for the benefit of Hungarian revisionists. It's an unusual map. Tell me please if you ever have seen an other map created on the same criteria like the "Red map". You surely didn't. The Red map is unique in the way it manipulates the census results. --Olahus (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

PS: Hobartimus, please stop the personal attacks against me. --Olahus (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The results benefit reality. If there were X% in the census it's represented as X% in the map. The results benefit accurate representation and not misrepresentation. I don't know why would anyone want to advocate misrepresentation, why should one group be misrepresented as 50% on the map if in reality they were 10% that's clearly misleading the readers. There were no personal attacks against you, so you can forget all your sentences starting with "ifs" like "if you suspect" and others. However let me remind you that throwing around uncivil words and allegations like "nationalist" and others is not and will not be tolerated. Hobartimus (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Olahus edits a lot of topics some Moldova related some others and to my knowledge he does so without any problems." Olahus is currently banned from editing some Moldova/Romania related articles.
And two hours after that edit I wouldn't accuse others of attacks.
The other map presents a hilly region with a few people as important as Kolozsvár. When it comes to ethnic maps, taking the population density into account gives a more neutral view of the situation. Nobody was left out in the making of the Red Map. Squash Racket (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I travelled those mountains and hills and I've seen people and villages (which by the way were not new built) to me it looks like they were left out by painting the map white. man with one red shoe (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You surveyed the land in 1910? Interesting. Fortunately we have the census results and maps so we don't have to rely on wp:Original research. Meanwhile can you point out where you fought for anti-Romanian trolling to be kept and not deleted at talk:Romania or other talk pages? You said you fight against censorship everywhere and not on POV grounds. That seems harder and harder to believe after comments such as "travelled those mountains". Hobartimus (talk) 18:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not OR because I can bring sources that there are/were people living in those places, imposing an arbitrary cut-off to show the map blank is very strange to me. What relevance has traveling with fighting trolling or propaganda? Oh, and why do I have to prove anything to you? Try to discuss ideas not editors (otherwise I will have to direct you to WP:PA ) nobody here has to prove his "value" to have the right to talk. If you don't understand that then you probably edit the wrong encyclopedia. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In 1910 level of technology ppl were living in 2500 m high mountains and in the middle of forests in huge numbers? That's hard to believe. Why do you have to prove that your earlier statements were true instead of false? I guess you don't have to but then you should not make statements like claiming you are generally "against censorship" when you start an edit war to repeatedly post comments that you yourself said were "trollish". Hobartimus (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"2500 m high mountains" -- where? man with one red shoe (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Maps are made to present the areal distribution, not the proportions. The porportions. If you want to add the information about the porportion, than you must add a chart to your map. See here an exanple. As I already said: the "Red map" is manipulated. --Olahus (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, why would a map have an arbitrary cut-off and show blank spaces in place of low density areas, which so it happens were inhabited by Romanians? Can anybody provide an example of such a map with cut-offs on Wikipedia? The maps that Olahus presented as counter-examples this one and and this one are good examples of density maps that don't just remove information like the Redmap. Further on this Redmap seems to be favored exactly because it removes information about areas where Romanians lived (even if in low numbers), not for any other reason. man with one red shoe (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

All sources refer to the Red Map as an ethnic map, the criticism of the 1910 census is not a topic of the picture's short caption. The population on the white parts of the map IS represented on the map, I corrected the caption.
BTW the history section will be seriously trimmed, so possibly both maps will fly from this article and added only in other articles in which these maps are really relevant. Squash Racket (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, first of all, on the 1910-census there was no question about ethnicity, but about the most frequently spoken language. And please stop adding senteces like "the corresponding population is represented in the nearest region with population density above that limit." It looks like a diagnosis made by you. I expect for a source (e.g. an independent description of this map) for this claim of you. See also WP:NOR. PS: I really doubt that Ignaz Hátsek's map will "fly" from this article, as long as it is not disputed.--Olahus (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I added the reliable sources describing it as an ethnic map (taking population density into account). Where did the other map come from? I see no references.

We have to summarize more than 1000 years in the history section, these maps rather have their place at Treaty of Trianon or Magyarization, NOT in the main article of Hungary. That's what I think. For example I don't see that many ethnic maps in the article Romania. Squash Racket (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I also found this information online:

The Austro-Hungarian population censuses in Vojvodina from 1880 till 1910 did not contain the question on native language but on the language of communication, which was understood to be the language used by a person in everyday communication. For this reason it would be rather difficult to use these answers for deciding on a particular ethnic identity.

So I'd really like to see a reliable reference about the reliability of the 1880 census which you seem to trust so much. Right now it looks less credible than the 1910 census.

Again I'm questioning whether such maps belong in the main article of any country or not. Squash Racket (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the maps should not be in the main article, too many maps and too much focus on history when this page should be more about present, the same mistake was/is made in many other articles of countries around the area (probably some lingering historical obsession): Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, etc. In total there are 12 maps on this page, that's a bit excessive. man with one red shoe (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Squash Racket, maybe you have rigth concerning the necessity of an ethnic map. You may remove the maps from the article if you want to. Concerning the article Romania, it really contains an ethnic map - take a better look. Concerning Hátsek's map: it was created in accordance with the 1880-census. I never heared any critics concerning this census, so why should be a necessary a reference about it's reliability? --Olahus (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the map titled "Rumania and its unredeemed territories". So much about bias...

We need a reliable reference for other articles that contain this map because of the quote from a Serbian website in my above comment (you missed it?). I repeat it here:

The Austro-Hungarian population censuses in Vojvodina from 1880 till 1910 did not contain the question on native language but on the language of communication, which was understood to be the language used by a person in everyday communication. For this reason it would be rather difficult to use these answers for deciding on a particular ethnic identity.

That's why I think the request for a reliable source is more than justified. Squash Racket (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the

Motto issue

> Cum Deo pro Patria et Libertate <

This motto was only used for a short time, between 1703 and 1711, when count Ferenc Rakoczi II. led a freedom fight against austrian-habsburg occupation. The reason for omitting Virgin Mary was the need to unite protestant hungarians with the catholic majority for the uprising.

Historically, Hungary was always about Mary. In fact, since about 1300AD the hungarian national anthem used to be a song starting "Boldogasszony anyank" (Blessed lady, our mother). Only in 1844 was it replaced by the existing national anthem, called "Isten ald meg a magyart" (God give blessing to the hungarians). 91.83.3.66 (talk) 18:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Turan I - 1944.gif

The image Image:Turan I - 1944.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

986 years

In the article it says the Kingdom of Hungary existed continously for about 986 years. What about after Mohacs ? I saw there is on Wikipedia an article "Royal Hungary", is it the continuation of the Kingdom after the Hungarian defeat at Mohacs ?

Also, if you are going to say the Treaty of Trianon was "controversial", you can at least quote some neutral sources about that. But in my opinion, in the given context calling it "controversial" is a "weasel word", supporting a revisionist attitude about the Treaty. --Venatoreng (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the point about the weasel word. Maybe it should be stated clearly that Hungarians contest it (if true, with references) not that's "controversial" man with one red shoe 18:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"In the article it says the Kingdom of Hungary existed continously for about 986 years."
No: the article says the Kingdom of Hungary existed for 946 years with minor interruptions. I had removed "minor" (before your comment here), otherwise that is correct.
I added a reference for the Trianon part (The New York Times). Suddenly millions of Hungarians found themselves outside of Hungary against their own will, how could you present this as non-controversial?
I think this article is pretty fair and neutral compared to other similar articles about countries, for example the article Romania. Squash Racket (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not our job to judge if this is controversial or non-controversial. It's something that Hungarians don't like, yes, we can say that, but qualifying that as "controversial" means that somebody else, uninvolved sees it as controversial, morever if it were to judge what's controversial or not, in Transylvania Hungarians constituted less than one third of the population 31% or so... I'd find it very controversial to support the idea that somehow the rest of 69% of the population who were not Hungarians belonged somehow to Hungary. Also, as far as I know Hungary signed treaties that recognized international borders with Slavakia and Romania, is that not correct, does Hungary what to redraw the borders? Is this the official policy of Hungary? man with one red shoe 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

And no matter how you source it "controversial" is a weasel word, if you want to keep it you need to say who considered it controversial, is it Hungarians, is it Western Europians (certainly not Slovakians or Romanians)? You need to say who considered it controversial and then I wouldn't have any comment about it. man with one red shoe 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's start with the controversial name of the "treaty".
Definition of treaty: "Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves". Was the Trianon thing a peace treaty or something else? Squash Racket (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How about using the name used by historians? Otherwise it would be original research. man with one red shoe 21:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Royal Hungary is an informal name don't get bogged down with it. Hungary never ceased to exist from it's foundation in 895/6. Occupation of part of the territory is not the same, it's silly to suggest discounting years on that basis. Hobartimus (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Was Trianon controversial ? For whom ?

Well, I see so far you only managed to back the "controversy" of Trianon with a single article. Here are some quotes from the article : "In some ways Hungary's joining the European Union next year will mark a kind of restoration of this country's historic ties. Hungary was stripped of two-thirds of its territory by the Treaty of Trianon after World War I. That left about two million ethnic Hungarians outside Hungary.

Trianon is still a word that evokes a powerful reaction among Hungarians, intensifying their sense that Hungary was stripped by an ignorant historic hand of its rightful possessions. To many people here, accession to the European Union will be equivalent of restoring some of what they lost.

Hungarians are the people most in favor of European integration, Mr. Szabados said, because they feel that the borders will disappear and will lead to the lessening of ethnic tensions. They also think that accession will improve the condition of the Hungarians outside Hungary.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire was essentially a network of the many different ethnicities and nationalities that always lived along the Danube, and as long as it was strong, it effectively had no borders and held ethnic rivalries in check.

The expectation is that the empire of Europe, obviously more democratic than the Austro-Hungarian Empire and voluntary rather than coerced, will do some of the same things."

So please, write FOR WHOM Trianon is controversial. Thank you. --Venatoreng (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "harsh and humiliating" is that not POV? Let's present the facts not opinions, people who want to read about the treaty can click on the wikilink. Sourcing POV with POV sources doesn't make it non-POV it makes it only a sourced POV, you can cry all you want that the Trianon treaty was harsh and humiliating and unfair, that's your opinion, it's not an encyclopedic fact, and as a matter of fact Hungarians were constituting 31% of Transylvania's population, harsh and humiliating was their cruel rule over the rest of 69% of population, not the end of occupation. Also most of the Hungarians are concentrated in two counties, the rest of the counties in Transylvania have had a clear Romanian majority. Of course when an empire is dismantled is "harsh and humiliating", Russians still consider that the end of the Soviet Union was "harsh and humiliating" it doesn't mean that's the opinion of the rest of the people in the world. I have no problem to say for example that Russians consider that unfair, that's correct, that's their POV, but I wouldn't present that as a fact: "harsh and humiliating end of Soviet Union" that would be POV pushing. Should we present Trianon as the liberation of Slovakian and Romanian people in those territories? No, that would be POV too, but I could find enough sources for that too. So, let's present facts and stop qualifying them with POV adjectives. man with one red shoe 18:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Beware of 3RR. Removal of well-referenced material will not be accepted. You asked for references, the sources added are neutral and reliable, so this is not an "opinion". I didn't add back the word "controversial" as the word itself was not used in this reference.

BTW what kind of population data did you mention here? Squash Racket (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Take a look on the data available in this very page, it shows that Hungarians were 31.6% of population of Transylvania (see the map) And the problem with "harsh and humiliating" is not the lack of sources, it's POV, it's the Hungarian POV presented as an encyclopedic fact. man with one red shoe 19:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Where is this data? This very page contains a lot of threads. Is it census data? Which year?
I think "controversial" was better and more simple, but you wanted exact citations from neutral sources. Squash Racket (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the map in Hungary#Between_the_two_world_wars_.281918.E2.80.931941.29. it lists the percentages. It's POV, you can't claim that's a general accepted fact, for what is worth you can't claim that Slavaks and Romanians have the same opinion that it was a "harsh and humiliating" act. Since not all parts agree to that it's clear a POV pushing, I don't know how you can twist this any other way. man with one red shoe 19:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is the 1910 census, which is based on "most common languages spoken" in a region. So much about that...
In the article Treaty of Trianon all viewpoints are presented. This is the article Hungary, not the article Romania or Slovakia. The sources are Encarta and the New York Times, not some obscure source.
I don't see the Hungarian viewpoint well-presented on almost any issue in the article Romania (including the Treaty of Trianon) despite the large Hungarian minority of the country. That seems like a double standard to me. What do you think? Squash Racket (talk) 19:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we are talking about this article and its POV not about others, feel free to open discussions on those talk pages. Even if this is an article about Hungary that's not a reason to present it in a POV-ish way. Nor the fact that other articles are not good enough is a valid argument to keep this article in a POV-ish state. As for 1910 census what's the problem with it? Do you have other numbers? It's a clear fact that there were and are more Romanians in Transylvania than Hungarians. That's a fact, not POV :) You might consider harsh and humiliating the fact that the Austro-Hungarian empire has crumbled, that's not necessary the opinion of the rest of the people, while I don't have a problem for you to say that's the opinion of Hungarians, I have a problem to present it as a generally accepted fact (AKA POV-pushing) man with one red shoe 19:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I repeat for the N-th time: The New York Times and Encarta presented it that way, NOT me.
The 1910 numbers are heavily disputed for example by Romanian historians. Squash Racket (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't explained right... different "point of views" can be very well supported by sources, I can bring many sources that claim that Trianon represented a long-waited liberation for Romanians and Slovakians. Even if sourced, that would be a POV, just like the idea that Trianon represented a "humiliation" or that was unecessarity "harsh". As long as there are many people (in this case Romanian and Slovakian historians) who don't accept it as a fact it's only a point of view of Hungarians and POV of the person who wrote that article in NY Times, is not an accepted fact, don't present it as such. As for Romanian historians contesting the 1910 numbers please provide a reference where they say that Romanians speakers were overcounted and/or Hungarian speakers were undercounted. Nowadays there are about 20% Hungarians in Transylvania, I think that's consistent with the 31.6% in 1910. But in any case, do you have any other numbers (more "reliable")? man with one red shoe 19:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As you criticized The New York Times and Encarta as "bogus references", please bring more neutral, more reliable sources presenting the Treaty of Trianon as a fair-minded and just "treaty" (we know the name itself is misleading, but that is the official name). So no Romanian and Slovak sources, these definitely won't overwrite the already presented sources.

Again you seem to forget the 3.3 million Hungarians who suddenly found themselves outside of Hungary which is harsh, controversial from any point of view. Squash Racket (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the millions of Romanians and Slovakians who finally achieved the right of self-determination ? From the point of view of the "Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen", the Treaty was not controversial. --Venatoreng (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

How do you consider the fact that over 5 million of Romanians had to live under the Hungarian rule? Not-harsh? Not-humiliating? man with one red shoe 20:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Difficult to understand? Copy and paste: "As you criticized The New York Times and Encarta as "bogus references", please bring more neutral, more reliable sources presenting the Treaty of Trianon as a fair-minded and just "treaty" (we know the name itself is misleading, but that is the official name). So no Romanian and Slovak sources, etc."
Again: the population numbers you are throwing around are probably far from being accurate. Squash Racket (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

OMG, an article in NYT, do you realize that represents the opinion of the writer who most likely is not even an historian? man with one red shoe 20:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And Encarta is used as reference for "humiliating terms" but I don't see anything like that in the article, at most this is an OR reinterpretation or WP:SYNTH/ man with one red shoe 20:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the contributions of some, and it's very unfortunate what is going on here. Generally speaking dislike, ill-feelings, hatred whatever you have for certain groups of people, wikipedia is not the best place for expressing it. Hobartimus (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you willing to discuss the article or the editors? Please re-read WP:NPA. I hope this is the last comment about the editors that you disagree with, if it's not, I will have to report you to the appropriate place. man with one red shoe 22:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times is a newspaper of record.
You should be able to find a phrase on a short, linked page (Encarta). Squash Racket (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I've finally found that in Encarta, thanks. As for the article in New York Times, it represents the opinion of the writer, is the writer somebody notable? A historian maybe? And is just an opinion, let me quote Wikipedia policies about opinions, from WP:NPOV: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves."

"By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon during wartime is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion."

In the similar way "Trianon was a harsh and humiliating treaty" is nothing else than an opinion. Pushing it here is nothing more that pushing POV, I don't dispute that's written in Encarta, so what? Encarta is not bound by the same NPOV principles as Wikipedia, neither do newspapers, even big ones like NY Times. Journalists have opinions, I don't think we need to treat journalist opinions as established facts, they are opinions (the article is not even directly related to Trianon and is written in 2008 by a journalist writing about Kosovo, I'll let people draw their own conclusion about its relevancy about the issue at hand)

More importantly even popular opinions such as "stealing is wrong" are not allowed here, only if you present facts such as "in the Bible at page [...] is mentioned that stealing is wrong" (which is a fact about an opinion), but otherwise you can't push opinions no matter how much you believe in them, that's a basic principle of Wikipedia. man with one red shoe 06:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times is an accepted source, their view is NOT an opinion. Last time a Romanian editor started removing NYT articles it didn't end well... Let me too quote WP:NPOV: The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".
I think presenting the biggest, forced shock in 1000 years of Hungarian history as a smooth, peaceful "treaty" in the main article of Hungary would be the biggest POV you can imagine. It would definitely seem like a deliberate attempt at misleading the readers.
Feel free to bring even more reliable sources supporting your POV, but in neutrality you will hardly beat these. Squash Racket (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you didn't read the policy, even saying that "stealing is wrong" is an opinion, I'm sure I can find that in NY Times if I search enough, right? That's an opinion, not a fact. I don't want to present Trianon treaty in any way, I want to present the facts and let the people draw their own conclusion, but for the facts of Trianon there's a separate article. You are free to present some details in this article but only facts, not opinions. man with one red shoe 06:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Again WP:NPOV is clear: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." man with one red shoe 07:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Basically you can detail the effects of the treaty you can say that millions of Hungarians were left outside of the border, etc. However saying that the treaty was "harsh", "humiliating", "controversial" or any other qualification constitute an opinion about the event not a simple presentation of facts, the policy is pretty clear: present events, not opinions. man with one red shoe 07:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me too quote WP:NPOV again: The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". Saying that something was wrong or bad is an opinion. Saying that something was harsh or humiliating is not the same.
For the N-th time: bring neutral, reliable, English sources supporting your POV if you wish. "Facts" in an encyclopedia are not just a bunch of numbers and statistical data, and I quoted Encarta that Wikipedia uses as a reference encyclopedia.
It is not just Hobartimus who complained about your style recently. Squash Racket (talk) 07:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is not the same? It's an opinion. If we can't say "stealing is wrong" (which is pretty obvious for most of the people) why could we say that "Trianon was harsh and humiliating"? We could say that only if you present the facts about the opinion, who claims it, what's the counter-opinion (that's part of a non-bias requirement) man with one red shoe 07:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You said it yourself: because it's not obvious to average, uninvolved readers. Removal of well-referenced, important content is not allowed on Wikipedia and won't be tolerated. Squash Racket (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Where did I say such thing, I've always supported to present the facts without qualifications and letting the readers draw their own conclusion. That's the whole issue. man with one red shoe 07:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Stealing is wrong" is obvious to readers, the fact that the terms of the Treaty of Trianon were harsh is NOT. You very well know that this is an encyclopedia, not a statistical book. Squash Racket (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you have a problem to see the difference between facts and opinions. In the case of the Treaty of Trianon is not even an opinion shared by all the parties involved, Romanians and Slovaks didn't consider it harsh, they considered it fair and a long-waited liberation, if you say something like "Hungarians considered it harsh" and you reference that, that I guess would be fine by me, that would be a fact about an opinion, but to say in general that "it was harsh" that's an opinion. There's no measure for harshness, nor for the level of humiliation, those can only be opinions, not facts, especially when there are other parts that don't agree. man with one red shoe 07:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times and Encarta consider it harsh and humiliating, not Hungarians. If you want to add reliable, neutral sources, that's fine, but according to WP:NPOV the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV" and the references will be added back. Squash Racket (talk) 07:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

First, a newspaper doesn't have opinions, that was the individual opinion of the writer of the article. Second, all those are opinons, we should present facts, not opinions, as I explained we cannot present in Wikipedia the info that "stealing is bad" because that's an opinion. man with one red shoe 07:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on your first sentence you can label every source "an opinion". Labelling the terms of the treaty as "bad" is an opinion, but describing these as "harsh" is valid. You too should bring references at least as reliable and neutral as these, but removal of content and references is not acceptable. Squash Racket (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello all. I've reworded the passage in question. I think this addresses both parties' concerns: the material is sourced, but technically it is an opinion. BalkanFever 08:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that's perfectly acceptable to me. man with one red shoe 08:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Though neither NYT, nor Encarta assigned these descriptions to Hungarians I think that's OK. Squash Racket (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad I could help. BalkanFever 08:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to push this issue any further, but. "The New York Times and Encarta consider it harsh and humiliating, not Hungarians." I am a Hungarian, and I do consider it harsh and humiliating. And anyone with some historical oversight should. The very same conditions were applied to Germany at the same event. The economic consequences of those topped with a global downturn led directly to the rise of a wannabe painter called Hitler and subsequently a minor event called world war two. Hungary was of course not in the weight class to incite a world war, but the loss of one third of its native population turned it towards Hitler which was a pretty bad move on its own. Hitler gave some of the lost territories back at the Vienna conferences, where the main parties enforcing the Versailles treaties (UK and France) did not participate at all due to disinterest(! think about that), so Hitler had free hands. As for the 'fair and long awaited liberation' for Romanians and Slovaks, both newly formed countries received vast territories with pure Hungarian population to deal with. After WW2 Czechoslovakia stripped all Germans and Hungarians off their belongings and citizenship(!) and declared them collectively traitors in the new constitution. The traitor passage of that constitution from 60 years ago is still in effect. Yes, it's 2008, European Union, good morning everyone. Romania although less formal, did not lag far behind in the proper conduct with unwanted minorities, especially in the Ceausescu era. Those were both hell of a way to celebrate fair and long awaited self governance. Bottomline: the Versailles treaty terms were yes, harsh, and yes, humiliating. Exactly that was the point. And they also are the direct cause of WW2 with tens of millions of lost lives, prolonged mistreatment of millions strong minorities throughout central Europe, 45 years of altruistic soviet friendship, and to this day, the cause of tensions between Hungary and its neighbors, especially Slovakia. Congratulations, Georges Pompidou and co, well done. Amanitin (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I should've written The New York Times and Encarta too consider it harsh and humiliating, not only Hungarians. Read the whole thread please. Squash Racket (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Headlines organization

I am not editing too much the english wiki, but the headlines looks terrible at this article. There is a new rule or why there is the Science in the second place? History looks too long, and badly organized. Don't Geography need to be more up? --Beyond silence 01:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Most messed up country article

Too many images and galleries are installed here. This is by far the most chaotic country article I came across at Wikipedia. The history section needs to be cut down. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Foundation data in infobox

Foundation data in infobox is disputed (see topic Hungaria on other Wiki .. Cz, Sk or Hr)
For many people (and in many laguages) is kingdom of Hungaria not to same like Hungaria after 1918.
See different in Cz language:
Kingdom of Hungaria is Uhersko (multi-nationals kingdom)
Hungaria (1918) is Maďarsko
Potocny

Use of English is not negotiable this is the English wikipedia. The name of the country is Hungary not any other name you use, HUNGARY, is what it is called in English. English is relevant what other language wikis use is not. We will not go around and looking and translating stuff from other small wikis just so you can be happy when we already have English. If you use other languages other than English again your posts will be simply removed, it is not permitted to write posts in other languages on article talk pages or write them half in English and half in another language. Hobartimus (talk) 22:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can translating names (of course) .. but Kingdom of Hungary is not to same like Hungary (after 1918) .. (from historical view)

Different territory and different ethnic groups .. this is reason why foundations data in infobox are disputed (or maybe incomplete .. See Austria)

Like The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Russia (not to same)

Potocny

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). We use use English names on English Wikipedia, no matter what a place may be called in some other language. As Hobartimus says, it is not negotiable. Hungary is never called “Uhersko” or “Maďarsko” in English; it is called “Hungary”; so that is what it is called in English Wikipedia. Conversely, since you mention Russia and the Soviet Union, they are called “Russia” and the “Soviet Union” in English; so that is what they are called in English Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 05:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody want change mane of this state in english (its matter of course). I talking about independence date. See dates in Austria–Hungary (1918 is last year for A-H Empire) .. and after check Austria (Independence: First Austrian Republic: 1918 ).

And Hungary?

Recognized as Kingdom - First king: Stephen I of Hungary dec 1000

(long time nothing)

Currently 3rd Republic October 23, 1989

Potocny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.1.74 (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no Independence date, there is a formation date, 896. What do you not understand? Look at the article France only 2 dates there, 1 foundation 1 current constitution, we could even leave out 1000 recognized as Kingdom. Please learn better English if you want to contribute anything here. Article editing with this level of English will be probably viewed as close to vandalism. Hobartimus (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian renaissance

There aren't Hungarian renaissance article in wikipedia. (lot of countries had own renaissance article. Can you create this article with good sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.4.116 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article size

The article is too long by any standards. The history section should be considerably shorter. Squash Racket (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that section needs a rewrite in shorter form rather than cuts. Gregorik (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there was a recent case of mass copying [9] from various articles. Copying low quality text from abandoned/badly maintained subarticles is mostly where the problematic length comes from. Hobartimus (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Magyarization

Is it not allowed to mention Magyarization in this article? My edit has disappeared four times so far – without any comment. Does anyone here really deny there was such a government policy 1867-1918? --Otberg (talk) 09:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't find Habsburg Germanization in the article Austria, Slovakization in the article Slovakia, Serbianization in the article Serbia or Romanianization in the article Romania. Would you help? Squash Racket (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right, Squash Racket! I guess Otberg won't be able to help you/us.--Nmate (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The sentence Due to various reasons including migration of millions, the census in 1910 (excluding Croatia), recorded the following distribution of population: Hungarian 54.5%, ... calls for mentioning the Magyarization, because this war the main reason for this demographic change. Historians say that the policy of Magyarization plays an important role in the last decades of the Hungarian Kingdom. If you need some sources I will supply. --Otberg (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Still, you have failed give us any answer for the quiestion of Squash Racket. --Nmate (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And dont forget to mention the migration policy of the Habsburgs: settle down foreigners in Hungary which led to Germanization, Slovakization, Serbianization, Romanianization of the country. Here are some of the laws: [10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16]Baxter9 (talk)

I don't know exactly what this have to do with this article, but there are links to Germanization in the Article Austria–Hungary and Prussia, links to Russification in History of Russia and Ukraine, links to Polonization in History of Poland and Galicia (Central Europe), to Romanianization in Romanians and Romanian language, to Ukrainization in History of Ukraine and Ukrainian language, to Serbianisation in Macedonia (region) and Serbo-Croatian language...

There are two sections in this article telling us about the increase of the percentage of Magyars in the country from 1787 to 1910. The big increase from 29 up to 54.5% is explained only by various reasons including migration of millions, but the main reason is not allowed to appear and was reverted 5 times so far without comment. What strange things happen here? --Otberg (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong explanation. This is the main article about Hungary. Neither of those links point to any main article. If you were to add those info to Austria Hungary it would be probably OK to us.--Nmate (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong answer: You reverted my edits in History of Hungary also 3 times. You should also delete these two sections in this article, because there in no reason given for ethnic change. --Otberg (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this info is OK in the History of Hungary article or (rather) the Demographics of Hungary. The reasons for this population change are difficult to guess, for example Britannica about Magyarization: "The linguistic frontiers had hardly shifted significantly from the line on which they had stabilized a century earlier".
The underlying problem is the obviously too large history section (compared to similar main articles about countries). Historic analysis of ethnic percentages belongs into subarticles, not this one.
The article needs semi-protection, every single time I try to cut the size of it, somebody comes and adds everything back disregarding WP:Article size (see thread just above this one). Squash Racket (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the contributions of Otberg I think the best idea is somewhere along not feeding the discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ad hominem -- man with one red shoe 22:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems a little kafkaesk that the article is telling about the ethnic changes, but may not refer to the main cause. But I guess the compromise of mentioning the Magyarization in History of Hungary will be the best now. Greetings --Otberg (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing the whole paragraph was a good idea concerning the internal logic of the section. --Otberg (talk) 08:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Turan I - 1944.gif

The image File:Turan I - 1944.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

GA failed

This article can in no way be listed as a GA.

Motto

Valami nagyokos szórakozik és beírta mottónak, hogy "Ne fürdjé' le". Ideje lenne kijavítani!

Some wiseguy is having fun with this page and wrote "Don't take a shower" as Hungary's motto, it should be corrected. User:Neonknights (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2008 (CET)

Suggestion on "See also" section

Let's do it this way. Squash Racket (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the excel article! Ronasdudor (talk) 10:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained image in article.

In the sport section there is a photograph of a motorcyclist, but no explanation of who he is or why his image is in the article. Could someone rectify this (I don't know enough to get involved sadly). Otherwise a very good article. Manning (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

History section cleanup

The history section is not awfully long now, but there are too many pictures in the article. We have to decide which one to keep and which one to drop. The captions of the pictures are also pretty long, but I just can't shorten them, because they contain important information. I'm waiting for suggestions.
One more thing: the article's overall size is acceptable now, but please don't expand it again. Squash Racket (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You know how i feel about this, but if you want the current version to stay, the layout will need some fixin'. Also, you can't include "main article" templates in the middle of prose, that's against pretty much any style guideline ever written. I'll try to do something about these things, let me know if it's any better for you.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The very same day you said you were through with editing here?

I never said my version was perfect, in fact I said "I am not yet finished (and probably won't be today)". Obviously it needs improvement. The history section seems a bit long because of the many pictures (some with long captions) and the subsection titles. Does it make the article better if we remove these? Don't think so.

You should realize that the place of the links to the main articles is a pretty minor question at this point. As you can see, there's quite a resistance against any changes in the article. Squash Racket (talk) 08:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Mh, only Hobartimus and that "destruction!" guy seem to oppose any change. And if they continue to ignore any attempt of discussion it's probably because they don't even have that much of an argument to make.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The way forward is to make small changes we can keep everyone happy. Hobartimus (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Star... starting with the politics section, what articles did you copypaste from in the case of the politics section? Hobartimus (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I'm fixing that. Next time rembember there's a reason for the talk pages, discussion is not supposed to take place in edit summaries.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed your words placed in the middle of my comment. Don't ever again do such a thing please.

You said on my talk page:

(...)Again, I'm through, and even if I wasn't I'd probably start wondering if this was worth the trouble. Over and out.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 09:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how you interpret your own words, to me that sounded like you didn't want to participate any longer.

As you don't really seem to understand that major changes should be discussed first, I reverted your edit. Let's see one section at a time. I absolutely don't think we need a "Healthcare" section and remove Hungarian breeds, national symbols of the country just to create an impression of sections of equal length.

And don't copy&paste material from subarticles as this article is more important than those. Squash Racket (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom also has a section on healthcare, and saying that animal breeds are more important than medical services is just absurd.

How does importance have anything to do with copying from other pages? I don't get your point.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I cut&pasted last part of my own comment to the proper place without reverting Piccolo's words. Don't add others' words in the middle of somebody else's comment, read WP:TALK. Squash Racket (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lets focus on 1 section at a time starting with the politics section, healthcare and education sections should be avoided for now it would be pure copypasta anyway. But we do have a politics section and some information can be updated there, true. Hobartimus (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Migration map

This map belongs in Hungarian prehistory and possibly Hungarian people. Without detailed description of the Finno-Ugric theory an uninvolved reader may think Hungarians have something to do with Russians based on that map.
We also won't talk about the genetic research suggesting ancestors of Hungarians first entered Europe 40000 years ago, which means that the migration of Hungarians might only be a reconquest or reentering of Central Europe. All of that belongs in the above mentioned articles, not in the main article of Hungary. And slapping a map without the description is misleading, unencyclopedic. Squash Racket (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

History

The history section ascribes surprising and positive interpretations to the motives of Hungarian leaders. For instance, that it was necessary to attack western Europe to prevent an alliance forming to destroy Hungary and that it was necessary to conquer parts of the Holy Roman Empire in order to defeat the Ottomans.

In principle we might just need citations to back up these claims, but to me it seems more likely we don't have a neutral point of view.

David Bofinger (talk) 11:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

About Magyar raids: Late Frankish emperors (like Louis the Child) purposed to exterminate the Hungarians in the 10th century. And he wasn't the last western leader who purposed the extermination of Hungarians.

That's interesting, and if you have a citation for it perhaps it would be appropriate to add it. Though there are at least three concerns here: (1) we're not supposed to be doing original research, so it's best if you can find a source that actually drew the conclusion you describe (2) the raids went to a lot of places that weren't Frankia and (3) an equally good explanation would be that Louis was motivated by the Magyar raids rather than the other way around. Still, having the citation would be an improvement. David Bofinger (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

About age of Matthias Corvinus.

First of all: Holy Roman Empire, exactly (Germany Bohemia and Austria) was not Western European country. It was a>>> Central European country << like Poland and Hungary too. Turkish/Ottoman empire became the second most populous country in the world. It's not a question that only a huge united European Empire would had wipe out the Turks from Europe. --Celebration1981 (talk) 13:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I assume this relates to whether the Magyar policy described in the article (conquer chunks of the Holy Roman Empire, make themselves strong enough to destroy the Turks) made sense or not. I can see some of the things you say relate to that but I'm having trouble parsing some of your sentences. At the moment that policy strikes me as very unlikely to have been the main motivator for Hungarian actions. David Bofinger (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong again, Matthias tried to became Holy Roman Emperor, but He died 3 years before the election. --Celebration1981 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit

I just imported this article to Wikinfo, but found several instances of less than standard English. I'm going to go through the article and copyedit. I don't intend to change the meaning of anything, but may, so please correct anything I do that changes meaning. Fred Talk 16:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I lied, but generally, will not make sustantive changes. Fred Talk 16:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This phrase is not good, "He rolled back the Byzantine potency in Balkan region." "potency" is not usually used in this way, but I'm not sure what to replace it with. I assume there was a Byzantine sphere of interest which was negated. Fred Talk 00:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You assume right. It was especially relevant somewhat earlier there was a real Byzantine push to spread their version of Christianity. Hobartimus (talk) 01:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Some obscure terms

In the section Hungary#Decline (1490-1526) there is the sentence "The magnates also dismantled administration and institute systems of the country." So who were "The magnates" and what was their role in the Hungary of that time? Perhaps the nobility?, but surely not as a whole. And what was the "institute systems" If I used that phrase with relationship to the English or American government or society, it would make no sense at all, although it might have some reference to the law, as in Institutes of the Lawes of England. I assume these make sense to a Hungarian, but they are not expressed in universal terms accessible to the average reader of English. Fred Talk 15:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the same section there is the sentence, "The early appearance of protestantism further worsened the relations in the anarchical country." From a Catholic perspective, that is perhaps true, but whether it was religious freedom or efforts to suppress it which were the cause of the disruption is not obvious. Fred Talk 15:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

propaganda? politics?

The section "politics" is too short. The whole article seems like propaganda from Hungarian "patriots". The uprising of the scary nationalism, racism and fashism - tolerated by the conservatives (like 1933!!) - is not mentioned. The actual destruction of the left and the punishing of scape goats (like always: minorities) is much more important than some history 500 years ago.

My illiterate neo-Marxist friend. Extremist type of Marxism is not tolerated in the civilized world anymore (similar to neo-fascism). The opinion of the Western World about the 1956 uprising is very positive, only the communist soviet perpective is different. From 1947 to the late 1960's the left-wing extremist communists called the western world and generally capitalist countries (USA and Britain etc..) as fascist countries. (Mainly in the Soviet Union) there was laughable but dangerous hate-propaganda against the Western world. The propaganda was definitely indispensable for the justification of the violent Soviet imperialism and dictatorship. The Soviet propaganda proved successful in interior: For the average Soviet (less literated) people the Capitalism and market-economy and Western World became synonyms of fascism. --Celebration1981 (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tobby72's VANDALISM

Some people vandalised the original version of the article. Tobby72 always restores the vandalized version. He is an old wiki-troll , just look the history of his Discussion-page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tobby72&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.144 (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, anonymous IP (77.111.185.144, or 94.44.10.217). Please, read carefully WP:Civility, WP:Sock (it is unacceptable to use multiple IPs to violate WP rules about edit warring), WP:OR and WP:RS. Bad-faith removal of well-referenced content is considered vandalism, like this [17], and this [18], or this [19]. Tobby72 (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You did not understand WP:OR and WP:RS, or you did not want to understand it. From the very beginnings, I created the history article of Hungary, which is based on serious sources and references. You always recostructed the vandalised version of the article. Go home and don't insult the articles of the countries of western culture.

Adding content sourcing THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS (!) is far from not using RS and nowhere near to OR. Wladthemlat (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wladthemlat, please edit the Slovakia article instead of Hungary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.6.45 (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I call a strong argument, coming from an IP it's even more valid. Wikipedia has its rules, thank god you cannot do anything about them.Wladthemlat (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The disruptive editing needs to stop. Slavs are a topic of a different article in fact we have multiple articles discussing them. The article is not a dumping ground for ill considered edits. The text needs to make sense. Hungarian prehistory can't be properly discussed in a single sentence we have a whole subarticle for the topic and then it wouldn't be discussed at the end of a section. What kind of nonsense is that, first the Hungarians found Hungary then they originate? If "the before 895" section is retitled and rewritten as dealing with Hungarian prehistory that's a different thing and then there is place for the information (other things need to be removed then) but it has to be discussed first. Hobartimus (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That Slavs are mentioned in one sentence doesn't render it off-topic. The sentence deals with the population of the land before the Magyars arrived and it's perfectly adequate to describe the level and origin of the indigenous population in the time that is described. Mind you, that the Huns and Avars both have a separate article as well, they are mentioned in the section nevertheless. I agree that the chronology of the last sentence can be modified, but that can be achieved in ways less disruptive than deleting the content. And again - since the Magyars are clearly described to have left some place else before they settled in Pannonia, it is perfectly fine, even necessary, to mention what that some place else actually was.

It is not necessary to discuss changes that are using reliable sources and do not alter the meaning of the article/section in a significant way. All your objections are not not to the factual accuracy, but to the wording or placement of the information. I wonder why didn't you take the liberty of modifying it in a way acceptable. instead of continuously deleting it from the article with no explanation whatsoever. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've spent a little time brushing up on this article's history, and I'm still a little unclear on the debate. There appear to be two controversial statements: the claim that the Karpathian Basin was sparsely populated by Slavs before 895, and the claim that Hungarians are thought to be of Finno-Ugric origin, from the Volga-Ural area.

As far as I can tell, both of these statements are properly sourced, and incidentally they both match my modest knowledge of Hungarian history from high school. Is anyone debating that these statements are correct, or are the arguments merely against the placement of the statements in the article? If it's the former, please provide contrasting, properly sourced evidence. If it's the latter, please explain where these statements should be placed instead! Thanks :) --Ashenai (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not turn things around. The whole process by Tobby72 should begin by coming to the talk page and proposing his change. But OK that's not realistic what about after being reverted like 10 times (he first started inserting back in August!!), now he knows his change is problematic and he should explain in detail why he wants to make the change in the first place. To this day there is not a single word of explanation from Tobby! The process is clear here. Tobby copies a sentence from somewhere and inserts it into multiple articles at a random place without even reading the article. How do we know, because the sentence is disconnected from the rest (Hungarians found Hungary then they originate...). He should explain his reasoning. And there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here that a sentence is true (Sun is hot) or can be sourced (Sun is hot ) means an automatic place in the "Hungary" article, or in fact any article. Again if Hungarian prehistory is discussed the section needs to be renamed (currently it's about the land) and a summary of Hungarian prehistory will be needed. Again, it's a possibility but not without any discussion and insertion of random sentences. Hobartimus (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We are discussing what is the problem with the added info and the only thing you are able to come up with is, that "Hungarians found Hungary then they originate", which is an utter nonsense, as it is perfectly ok to describe someone arriving somewhere with a ex-post mention of his original position. You would save us all time, space and nerves if you just proposed alternative wording. As far as I am concerned the info is at a proper place and properly sourced, there is no reason for deletion. And if may take the liberty of extrapolating from Ashenai's post, I am not the only one.

And by the way, the section deals with the land not the tribe, that is why we first learn that they came and then where from. I repeat, the info and wording is ok, if you propose an alternative, we can discuss it. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that a short sentence about who was here before we Hungarians settled the land seems appropriate, as is a short bit about the (uncertain) origin of Hungarians. I'd understand the objections if there were massive paragraphs about these issues, because they're only tangentially related to the article, but a sentence or two for both of these issues seems appropriate to me. Apologies if I'm butting in here, I realize I'm new to this particular debate. :) --Ashenai (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Why was the pronunciation changed from [mɒɟɒrorsaːɡ] to [mɔɟɔrorsaːg]? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungary&diff=305663734&oldid=305202284 Yuhani (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with it, but, in general: "ɔ" is a more commonly understood symbol than is "ɒ", so whoever changed it might have had that in mind; from my tiny knowledge of Hungarian phonology, it seems the original symbol would be more correct, i.e. a closed, low back vowel, not a closed, low-mid back vowel. But again, convenience is a factor; in Daniel Jones's English pronunciation dictionary, he uses "ɔ" for RP's "short O" which is really more like "ɒ", and I'm sure Jones knew that when he chose the more common, but not exactly correct symbol. Jakob37 (talk) 02:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Great Moravia

Could someone please explain to me why is the section being repeatedly deleted? The history section deals with the Carpathian basin and it's really a falsification of history if after Huns and Avars only the Megyers are mentioned and the Slavic state which dominated the region (and was able to push it's language as only the fourth Christian liturgical language, so clearly it wasn't a negligible power) is simply omitted. Wladthemlat (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the disruption, and the use of ethnic slurs(?). (writing "Megyers"). [20] Hundreds of years of Avars are dealt with briefly. Hundreds of years of Roman rule are dealt with briefly just as the Huns. How many hundred years do you allege in this case as to merit the same treatment as the Avars for example? Hobartimus (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs you say? It's just an attempt for historical accuracy [21].

I tried to be as brief as possible. However, it's not possible to equate Roman or Avar involvement in the region with the importance of Great Moravia. For Romans the area was completely peripheral, Avars used the basin only as a base for their raids. The Slavic states introduced Christianity (which Stephen I. later took over) and Great Moravia even managed to persuade Rome to have its language as a liturgical one (first one after Hebrew, Latin and Greek(!)), those are important historical milestones directly connected with the region in question, and their importance cannot be measured in simple years count.

But anyway, if you think the section is too long, you are more than welcome to propose an alternative wording here on talk. But to simply delete it damages the article, as it blanks out several hundred years in history. Wladthemlat (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That sentence used the name of the Megyer tribe compare that with your sentence "after Huns and Avars only the Megyers are mentioned" (talking about the article) well, the whole article has not a single instance of that word in it I guess everyone can draw their own conclusions. "For Romans the area was completely peripheral" that's irrelevant as this is not the "Romans" article, the only question here is "For the area' the Romans were important/unimportant". And you still forgot to answer the question about the number of years. We cannot continue this discussion until the number of years of involvement in the area is cleared. Hobartimus (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh the hell we can. I explained to you very clearly why the years count is irrelevant. "the whole article has not a single instance of that word in it" - that does not prove anything, only the fact that something is missing there ;) But I admit, I should've use Megyers and the others, sorry, i was typing in a rush. And saying "For Romans the area was completely peripheral" is just another way of saying "the Romans weren't too much involved here ergo they were not too important for the region".

But you are driving the discussion off the topic. What is your argument to support the total exclusion of the Great Moravia from the article? All you are saying here is tell me how many years and if it justifies the amount of text, and I have already told you, that such an issue should be resolved by an alternative wording proposal, not by a complete deletion. You still weren't able to come up with any argument even supporting that the section should be shorter (even if the years are considered - 906-623=283 > 250 that Avars were here, but again, I don't buy such an argumentation) Wladthemlat (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Simply put the years are significant because we are not talking about the whole existence of GM just a very very short period when it allegedly occupied large parts of the Carpathian Basin. This was even by those who support this theory a period from 1-2 years to 5-10 years. To say it more exactly the 894 alleged borders perished a year or two later, and earlier borders included a smaller territory as described by the proponents of that theory. Also there is great debate on the validity of the various theories especially on the location of GM. There is no clear evidence as to the location and it would be taking the side of a POV to pronounce one theory over another. Some locate GM much to the south, near present Slavonia, and other places but this whole discussion is offtopic here. Unfortunetly there is no real evidence such as archeological findings or written accounts that support the location. Again hundreds of years of Romans, hundreds of years of Avars, Huns are all dealt with briefly. There is not much also on Hungarian prehistory because the section is a short summary of many topics. All these topics are explained in detail in other articles, if someone is interested in them and the various theories and speculation he can read page after page after page on them. Hobartimus (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That is just your opinion, you did not support that by any sources and the 1-2 years is just WP:FRINGE, nothing else. I have cited reliable English-language sources, even written by authors with Hungarian sounding names. I have deliberately tried to avoid any Slovak sources as I expected this kind of an attack. Since all the sources clearly place the principality of Nitra into the early 9th century and GM into ~833-906 we are talking about a century at least here, which is more than enough to support the inclusion. All the sources also mention the Magyars as the main cause of GM's fall and as Svatopluk's allies against the Franks, so it is clearly connected with the topic.

Please spare us all the lengthy listing of various Hungarian nationalist fringe theories about how the GM did not exist or lasted for a year etc. I have sourced my contribution, so your opinion is irrelevant. Any serious arguments? Wladthemlat (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

1-2 years is what? It's not the whole existence of GM nobody said that. It's exactly the time that the alleged 894 borders lasted even the Slovakia article lists "the era of GM" until 896. So it is natural that from 894 until 896 there is not more than 1-2 years. The alleged 894 borders are sometimes depicted (for example a map in the Slovakia article) but I've never seen a respected, non-fringe historian do it as they rarely draw maps without any evidence. And we didn't even go into alternative theories about the location being in the south. Hobartimus (talk) 14:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

And of course there are theories and counter theories but they are to be discussed in their respective articles and not where they are off topic. Even on this talk page it's off topic. Consensus should be gained in Hungarian prehistory and other articles where these topics are discussed on which theories are valid which are Fringe etc etc. They are offtopic in the article or on the talk page. Hobartimus (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the section rely on the exact borders?! I don't care if the greatest territorial expansion lasted only a year (I doubt it, however), it is clear that the polity had a significant impact on the later development in the region, therefore its inclusion is merited. And by the way, Great Moravia is what it is called since the unification in 833, so you are being irrelevant even more.Here you have a map that is roughly the same as in the Slovakia article [22](number 2) and this [23] proves it's right, or at least that the inclusion is merited. Wladthemlat (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

→ From WP:Third opinion: The inclusion of that section gives undue weight to a particular pre-Hungary period in this article, Hungary. Such material would be better placed at Hungarian prehistory or Pannonian Basin before the Hungarians, with {{Further}} links to Great Moravia where appropriate. The current article is almost 200 kb long, and needs more concise summaries more than it needs additional sections. When deciding how much space and depth to devote to a particular aspect of a topic, it is important to take recourse to general sources and reflect their coverage. Beyond the reliable sources threshold, the trustworthiness of a particular source is less important for determining weight in the treatment of a topic than is its generality. As an outsider, I could see adding up to a few dozen words based on the lingering impact of toponyms and script.

As a side note, please remember to stay focused on improving the article without recourse to personal attacks on other editors. As well, I remind you that whenever text is copied from one article to another, you must include this fact in your edit summary. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, just a side note - none of the text was copied from another article. Wladthemlat (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the image caption, which is very similar to the caption of the same image at Great Moravia. Looking more closely, I see that the image caption in the file description is the source for both. Thanks for clearing that up. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. And if I may ask - what personal attacks were you refering to? Wladthemlat (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

sentence in introduction

The following sentence from the intro seems to imply that Stephan and the rest are cultural centers instead of people: After being recognized as a kingdom, Hungary remained a monarchy for 946 years, and at various points was regarded as one of the cultural centers of the Western world (Stephen I, Béla III, Louis I, Matthias I, Lajos Kossuth, István Széchenyi) Ideas for fixing it? Mine would be to delete the list of names in parenthesis altogether, but if anyone can fix it in a better way... Emika22 (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Commented out the names. Hobartimus (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup? Reorganization?

This article has 9 subs of Culture, 8 subs of History, and 7 of Public Holidays; but only 2 of Economics and Geography and none of Politics or Military.

It feels so imbalanced and rather to be a holiday brossure than a main page of such a diverse entity.

80.98.254.92 (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

why is there a pic. of a rubiks cube?

did some one from hungary invent the rubiks cube? If not than get rid of the picture because it does not fit into this context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltmssbb (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you guessed it right. Hungarian architect Ernő Rubik. (A google search would have been significantly faster than posting a message here). Qorilla (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok then why not include that in the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltmssbb (talk • contribs) 23:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 

Great Moravia

I just added sourced short mention about Great Moravia and corrected wikilink to Svatopluk I from disambiguation. Is there any reason for revert?--Yopie (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Yopie,Regardless your sources, none of Hungarian wants to accept your proposed changes which is higly disputed, anyway.--Nmate (talk) 15:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

History vs. Policy

“Hungary lost over 70% of its territory, under the Treaty of Trianon” This sentence is to attack of other states which have emerged after the breakup of Uhorsko. It is a political construction that creates a constant tension in Central Europe. Uhorsko was a multi-state and its distribution Mgyars lost anything, just get your state “Magyarorszag” like the other neighboring countries. It is incorrect to understand history of Uhorsko as the history of Magyarorszag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.61.1 (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hungary actually did lose that percentage of territory. Even Slavic nationalism can't change the past truth. You can try to manipulate around, using different terms for one and the same country ("Hungary", "Kingdom of Hungary", "Uhorsko", "Magyarorszag", "Madarsko"), but that still won't change the fact that 72% of Hungary was detached in 1920. The only thing one can argue is that Croatia-Slavonia could be left out from the calculation, as it was an autonomous region, but the percentage is still very high even if you take that out. Qorilla (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Cause disintegration of Hungary was just effort Hungarians steal the whole country. This political concept has started to promote the 19th century and ended after World War 1. Continuation of the ideas 19th century will only lead to constant conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.248.61.1 (talk) 06:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

See you, Ip editor, perhaps we could argue about something after aleady you correctly penetrated what had happened to Austria-Hungary in the Teatry of Trianon. But it seems that the circumstances aren't congenial for any kind of arguing until you haven't taken the time for perusal of some pounderous historical books.--Nmate (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is the color version of this picture?

Anrew

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stears159 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies spotted

- "Cum Deo Pro Patria et Libertate" was the personal motto of Count Ferenc Rakoczi II during the national uprising he led between 1703-11. It is not a national motto any time. (Hungarian people and nation are divided and divisive constantly, that only ancient things can be motto or symbol, because anything relatively new would be debated and protested to death).

Although Hungary since the 1540s has been mixed catholic-protestant, from app. 1200 until 1844 the national anthem was the folk catholic religious hymn "Boldogasszony Anyank" (Blessed Lady, Our Mother) and the motto was "Regnum Mariae, Partona Hungariae". The political power was held by the catholic part, that is.

- Hungary now has minimum 660.000 gipsy (dark complexion tribal people originating from northern hindustan), this is the baseline all researchers accept. Some researchers count 800k and the general public is convinced they are 1 million. Therefore gipsy (tzigane) is 6,6% minimum among the population of Hungary, rather than the 2-3% the article quotes! They have extremely high replication rates, average 6 kids per mother, when an average hungarian white woman has just 1.7 child and the trend is shrinking even further. Only their criminality grows faster than their population!

There are also 200.000 jews living in Hungary, almost all of them, some 170.000 living in Budapest currently. (The countyside jewry was exterminated by nazis in 1944-45 and most survivors did not return to the villages.) 91.82.167.38 (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Hungarian people and nation are divided and divisive constantly" it is the proof of democracy. The artificial concordance and forcible "great undertsanding" in a society mean dicatatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.1.143 (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Svatopluk

Could someone please explain why the Slavic states and Great Moravia get constantly deleted, even though the text is properly referenced? Moreover, the text in the pre-895 section jumps to referencing Svatopluks name with no context whatsoever, it is never explained who he was. Adding a paragraph on GM is therefore not only sensible, but necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wladthemlat (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't know where was the Svatopluk's state. It was in the North or in the South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.6.2 (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Hungarians

The 400.000 number of the conqueror Hungarians is an obsolete myth and theory (or imagination) before the genetics based anthropology. This myth is conflicting with genetical (Y and mt.DNA) reality and evidence of old artifacts and bones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.1.182 (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Why does the article not speak about genetical biological reality instead of linguist and other obsolete tales? The conquering Hungarian tribes gave 5-10% of the entire population of early Hungary. According to genetics, the conqueror Hungarian tribes (and the later foreign western solfdiers) gave the ruling elite of medieval Hungary. More and more western historians think, that the conqueror tribes had foreign (non-Hungarian) turkic languages which was disappeared by time. Present-day Hungarian language is not based on the original language of conqueror tribes.

I don't know what you refer to. Please cite a source. Qorilla (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

All genetic labor state it (since the appear of the genetic researches of ethnic groups.) Again 400K Magyar is a theory or imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.1.182 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you show a website which contains this information? The 400K was a sourced estimation. Qorilla (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

400K is just an imagination. Therefore it isn't interesting the existence of sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.1.182 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/07/ancient-hungarian-mtdna.html http://www.mitochondrial.net/showabstract.php?pmid=17585514 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.1.182 (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it tells how many Hungarians came in 895. What it seems to tell is that a certain maternal Asian characteristic is rare among modern Hungarians. Qorilla (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Read it again! It speaks about ancient bones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.1.182 (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Foundation date. (894? 895? 896?)

For a long while this has been stated at 896. With this edit, User:94.44.6.78 to 894 with the edit summary "Fact: Foundation date is 894. Only the so-called Millennium celebrations belated 2 years in 1896!!!". I undid it saying if it is a fact can we have sources. Another edit by the same user here has the edit summary "All history books write 895". Again, I have undone it requesting references.

Now, evidently it cannot be both 895 and 894 so one of these two edit summaries must be incorrect, or, more likely, some books say one thing and others another. I have no worry which date we put, we could put "894 or 896" or "between 894 and 896" or whatever, but changing it without actually referencing where it comes from seems pointless to me. And, it is incumbent on the person making the change to justify it, not on the reverter (me) to justify the reversion. There's no point edit warring about this, so can we try to achieve consensus here please?

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually I realise that these come from similar, but not identical, IPs. Vodafone Hungary has IPs 94.44.8.0 - 94.44.15.255 so these may or may not be the same user, I have apologised at User Talk:99.44.6.78 for assuming they were one and the same, but it was more for courtesy to say I have started this discussion here anyway and asking to contribute. Si Trew (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think 895 is correct, 896 became emphasized because of a delay in the Millennium preparations at the end of the 19th century.
Update: found a reference explaining it (in Hungarian). Squash Racket (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Map

Greetings! I am sorry but that map is simply wrong. Hungary did not control Bulgaria in any sense. The only success of Louis I was to conquer the region of Vidin and he only kept it for 4 years (see Hungarian occupation of Vidin.). The rest of Bulgaria was under Emperor Ivan Alexander and he did not have any overlord. I insist that mistake to be corrected or to substitute that map with another one which is correct. Regards, --Gligan (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no mistake in that there is no implication of Hungary controlling Bulgaria anywhere on the map. Bulgaria is colored with a different color from Hungary. Bulgaria is yellow, while Hungary is in pink. Furthermore, yellow is a unique color on the map indicating that the case of Bulgaria was unique. That is consistent with what you say and Bulgaria having a ruler of it's own. Hobartimus (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But the description below states "Lands, countries kingdoms under Louis' control" and Bulgaria never was, neither controlled nor vassal. Then we should think of an appropriate description. --Gligan (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bulgaria as other balkan countries had little population in medieval age. For comparison: Hungary+Croatia had 4million population in the 15th century, the total population of Balkan was also 4 million at the same time. The economy was always better in western type (catholic-protestant) countriea than economy of countries of balkan Orthodox civilization which caused higher inland revenues. It's no wonder that Balkan countries become vassal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.184.193 (talk) 20:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The orthodox countries hadn't stone/brick castle defense systems (except byzantine greeks), therefore it was easy to conquer them by a large successful battle.

That's pure nonsense. The Middle Ages extend from the 7th century to 1500, and for much of this time, the Balkans were far more populous and prosperous than Croatia or Hungary. Faith doesn't enter into this. The Bulgarians definitively had "stone/brick castle defense systems" after centuries of interrelations with the Byzantines. I suggest you check out Pliska or Preslav to get an idea. Constantine ✍ 21:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what do you want to say with that stupid comment but I will tell you something about medieval Bulgaria. We had hundreds of stone castles some of which were considered to be one of the best in medieval Europe of the time. That fortress called Rahovets (now completely destroyed) for example impressed the Hungarian travelers in 14th century. The capital of the Second Empire Tarnovo was practically impregnable and even after the Hungarians defeated Bulgaria in a war in the 1250s they did not even waste time to besiege it although they reached the surroundings because it was pointless. I greatly respect Hungary and considered it a brother country but the very existence of Hungary in its current location is due to the decisive Bulgarian victory over the Hungarians in 896 which forced Arpad to move westwards and empty the lands around Dneper and Dnester forever.

And then again do not forget that the Medieval Bulgarian rulers had internationally recognized Imperial title and were never ever under any circumstances Hungarian vassals. Check out history books before writing nonsense again.

In fact, Constantine, the early Bulgarians even brought some innovations in fortifications because they used large stones to construct fortresses, as in Pliska and Preslav, while the Roman-Byzantine tradition relied on bricks and smaller stones.

And to the anonymous person - name a single major battle that the Hungarians had won against Bulgaria.

Also, my question on the map/the description remains unanswered. --Gligan (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Just an important data from the year 1520: Total population of the Ottoman Empire (with Asian African European provinces)was 16 million. The 4 million for Balkan seens perfect number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.184.193 (talk) 07:42, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The balkan states which haven't stone castle defense system became Turkish provinces immediately. 4-5 Bulgarian stone castles don't mean defence system. Only the Hungarians were able to defeat The Sultans main armies in 14-15 th century. Only Hungarian Kingdom was able to stop the turkish invasion (as you can see in all historic maps from 16-17 centuries)

The fact of the backwardness of Orthodox countries is in every economy-history books. Only Constantinaple was developed in the Orthodox world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.184.193 (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't confuse the hisory with the nations friendship. I1ve Bulgarian familiars, and that friendship is not depend/based on medieval history.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.184.193 (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong here. The Balkan Orthodox countries very not taken by the Ottomans because they were backwards or underdeveloped but because the Western European feudalism became to enter the Balkans in 13th century and by the Ottoman invasion in 14th century the countries very divided into independent or semi0independent tiny kingdoms, principalities, duchies and even the two empires Byzantium and Bulgaria were already extremely small. According to estimates by historians there were 50 independent entities in the Balkans (almost every single one was hostile to its neighbours) on the eve of the invasion and the Turks used the vassalage system which was very effective for them making the Orthodox rulers to fight against each other.

The Second Bulgarian Empire had very well developed defense system of castles, creating whole defense lines of fortresses along the southern bank of the Danube (often supported by Bulgarian-held castles on the northern bank), along Stara Planina, along the Black Sea coast, in the Rhodopes; and every town was surrounded with stone walls and had citadel. In almost every village or town in modern Bulgaria there is a locality called Kaleto (the Castle), or Gradishte (old Bulgaria word for fortified town) but they are in complete ruins.

And here is again our confusion - the Ottomans ruined everything, they ruined our castles, churches, nobility and left almost nothing. That why there are almost no well-preserved castles in Bulgaria now - because they were fully destroyed, not because they did not exist. After the Ottoman invasion the population shrank. According to estimated Bulgaria had 2,5 mln population in 14th century - as much as England; and the same figure remained until the early 19th century; so you can imagine in what time the Bulgarian people lived. But that is due to the Ottomans, not to our medieval state. Your statistics which you present show figures after the invasion which ruined the infrastructure and economy of the Balkans.

And then again, the Hungarian Kingdom ultimately failed against the Ottomans as well and Hungary was also occupied no matter how strong it was. It was the Spanish and the Austrians who decisively stopped the Ottomans. --Gligan (talk) 12:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic here. The only important detail is what was the relationship between Bulgaria and Hungary in 1342 – 1382. Or even more precisely Lajos the Great (Louis of Hungary) and Bulgaria. The map was drawn as it was drawn it includes Poland as being related, so we know it's AFTER 1370 already (Hungary-Poland personal union under Louis of Hungary is drawn into the map). So at this time Ivan Alexander is DEAD (lived until 1371). So what was the situation 1371-1382 ? We already know from the map's coloring that it was unique(yellow) and it was not a personal union (would be green) And let's try to focus instead of discussing orthodox religion, castles etc etc. Hobartimus (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I just couldn't leave that nonsense unanswered. Now on topic - after the death if Ivan Alexander, he was succeeded by his son Ivan Shishman in Tarnovo but Ivan Sratsimir in Vidin refused to recognize his brother as overlord and Bulgaria was divided between the two, as well as despot Dobrotitsa in Karvuna. The larger part was under the control of Ivan Shishman and he was neither vassal nor controlled by Hungary. The same was for Ivan Sratsimir. --Gligan (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Again 4-5 castles and fortified towns doesn't mean castle defense system. Have you ever seen history-maps from the 16th and 17th century? Turks couldnt occupy Hungary, (just parts of Hungary), because we had castle defense system to stop the turks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.184.193 (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And do you make the difference between 13th-14th century when Bulgaria existed and 16th-17th century when our castles were destroyed. I stop the off-topic with you once and for all. --Gligan (talk) 16:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

split article

This article is awfully long, I think parts of the history should be taken out.--Levineps (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

However, first any information that is included here but not at the history of Hungary article, must be merged to there. Then this article's history section needs to be reformulated to be more dense, and not go into that much detail as it does now. Qorilla (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Article completely over the top - at a massive 207,942 bytes

Lots of good information, but this page seriously needs to go on "a diet". It is now just too big. Much of the page's excellent information should be put into sub-pages about Hungary.

Semmler (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Budapest doesn't belong to Pest

It's a general mistake among Hungarians too, but Budapest doesn't belong to Pest. On this page: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_megye it's explained correctly: "Székhelye Budapest, az ország fővárosa, amely azonban önálló területi egység, nem tartozik Pest megyéhez.", so at the section "Largest cities", it should be "Budapest" "Budapest", instead of "Budapest" "Pest". Cf. Hay (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes

This article has been excluded from the pending changes trial because there is lack of disruptive activity here that would justify applying any type of page protection here. 山本一郎 (会話) 03:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hungary has neither the most Olympic gold medals per capita nor the most Summer Olympic gold medals per capita.

According to the statistics on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-time_Olympic_Games_medal_table and the population of countries, Hungary does not have the most Olympic gold medals per capita (0.00001559). I did not calculate the values for all the countries in the world, but it seems that both Finland (0.00002649) and Sweden (0.00002031) have more Olympic gold medals per capita than Hungary. Taking only Summer Olympic gold medals into account does not change this order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.211.71.87 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC) But it was not true until 2004.

Hungary had the most Gold medal / capita until 2004. The source is old —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Eptymology

If there are any users on Wikipedia with knowledge of the eptymology of "Hungary", it would make a useful addition to this article. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 22:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Economy Data

in the economy section the "cumulative foreign direct investment" part is wrong i believe it is listed at 23 billion but the CIA world factbook has it at totaling more than $60 billion since 1989

I am wondering, why is an American politically biased groups economic data even mentioned on the wikipedia article for Hungary? There is a definite bias, not even from any particular hungarian political entity or party, but from an American Middle Right political organization which acknowledges its bias in judgement (in the fact that it is a firm specifically paid to give right leaning data observations). If the data is not from actual hungarian sources, or at the very least, a nonbiased source, it should not be posted as if it is factual. Imagine if the American Communist party was sourced as a valid reference for Singapore. It would show definite bias.

- 5th of July user

messy "2008–2009 Financial Crisis" section

in the section 2008–2009 Financial Crisis, last paragraph is very messy. soon after "The 2008 financial crisis hit Hungary mainly in October 2008." sentences become incorrect and incomprehensible.

i tried to clean them up, but as i couldn't figured what some of them were meant to say... i decided to leave that for somebody with better knowledge of the subject.

Need to know

The word Hungarian comprehends the Hungarian nations and the Hungarian languages. Magyar is the official language of Magyarország (Hungary), but the word ″Magyar″ is not equal with the word Hungarian. In Hungary there are many nations and languages, but the main population of the country is the Magyars. Certainly in the country there are some other ethnic minority (cigány, tóth, székely, etc). Huns, sycthians (szittya in Hungarian, the latin name of the huns), magyars doesn't mean the same nation! I am Magyar, in Hungary we teach our history, and we know our history. Yours sincerely, Krisztian 195.228.142.2 (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Székelys live in transylvania. Their mother tongue was always Hungarian. The word "Hungarian" is thought to be derived from the Bulgar-Turkic Onogur, possibly because the Magyars were neighbours (or confederates) of the Empire of the Onogurs in the sixth century, whose leading tribal union was called the "Onogurs" (meaning "ten tribes" or "ten arrows" in Old Turkic; see below

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars --Stubes99 (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. Székelys live in Transylvania, and their mother tongue was always Székely and Magyar, or Székely-Magyar, not Hungarian! My father is Székely-Magyar and I'am Magyar – but we are hungarians, because we live in Hungary. Sorry but you are wrong. And this article is completly wrong and false. 94.248.148.185 (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, please don't be more clever than (the source of this information ) professional historians of Hungarian Academy of Sciences. It's simply laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see, you know this better like Magyars and the Magyar Tudományos Akadémia (Hungarian Academy of Sciences). See these articles and go to learn more and more: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarok ; http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarorsz%C3%A1g ; http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_nyelv ; http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_nyelvj%C3%A1r%C3%A1sok ; http://www.mvsz.hu/ . Oh sorry! You aren't Magyar? You don't speak Magyar or Hungarian? You are simply a laughable smartarse. 94.248.148.185 (talk) 12:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So, because "Magyar" is the Hungarian for Hungarian, it has to be the English for Hungarian? [non sequitur] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) Si Trew (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello. My name is Krisztian, and I live in Magyarország (Hungary). It follows that I am Magyar (this is the main nation of Hungary), and my mother tongue is also Magyar (this is the main and official language of Hungary). The foreign people think that Magyar corresponds with ″Hungarian″, but this is a false. In Hungary there are many nations and languages, and the Magyar is in the highest degree (98%) of the Hungarian languages in this country. Kind regards Krisztian73 (talk) 07:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, Krisztian73 has Slovak IP adress.... Hungarian is an English word for Magyars. Finns called as Soumi suomalaiset in Finland. Der Österreicher = Austrian man. Just read Etymological dictionary like The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Read Encyclopedia Britannica. Or Hungarian ecnyclopedias. Hungarian means Magyar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 15:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No comment. Krisztian73 (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Or do you want to know better the term than Etymological dictionaries or encyclopedias? Don't be ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No comment. Krisztian73 (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Answer for Krisztian of Slovakia: No IQ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 08:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Inventions-section needs work.

It is very weirdly written. I edited thinking there was a mis-attribution... only finding out that the inventor (some in brackets, some not) and separated by seemingly arbitrary commas, was different. Preference would be for an actual list, by inventor... or by year perhaps.60.242.39.220 (talk) 04:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, this could go to FA if people would stop arguing about terminology

This article, as one would expect from an important article about a country, could be easily taken to FA with the consensus and hard work of a lot of editors.

It is continually ruined by infighting about whether Magyar is right and Hungarian, and which date it is founded, and when King Stephen was crowned. Next we will have a big argument on where the marls in Széchenyi belong, a hot topic in Hungary so I am led to believe, but look: this is English Wikipedia and English writers don't use diacritical marks, so from the point of view of the English language Wikipedia it doesn't matter, just choose one and stick to it. It's more ridiculous to see Széchenyi Chain Bridge with one way of orthography and National Széchényi Library with another. I do understand there is disagreement there, the aim is to achieve consensus on which way it should be written, in the English Wikipedia.

Sources on each side try to state their case, which is useful and constructive (although quoting Hungarian sources that say Magyar is not; I would have taken it as read that in English the language is called "Hungarian" and in Hungary it is called "Magyar", but then I am only a literate Englishman married to a literate Hungarian, and the facts that the topic is called Hungarian language and the ISO-639 code is "hu" and so on, and on cars it is "H" and whatever other examples will not rid the idea that English-speaking people call it Hungarian, and few know the word "Magyar" and that it is generally used only as a noun indicating ethnicity).

So, stop the silly edit wars and then get this to FA. I've been reviewing a few GA articles the last few days, and this would quick-fail because of the edit wars. Meanwhile, people like me and my partner are improving Hungarian coverage on lots of subsidiary articles but we dare not approach more-encompassing topics because of the edit wars. That is to admit, I suppose, we edit by stealth in building a good base for the small articles we develop, then change the next up in the hierarchy, and so on. So at the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 we have translated all the battles and so on, from HU:WP and FR:WP and DE:WP (that's not synthesis, by the way) and done everything right there. We dare not touch the main article Hungarian Revolution of 1848 or major biographies on people like Lajos Kossuth since we know that will just be reverted or edit warred over, and we don't care, we'll carry on slowly translating biographical and geographical and historical articles and let the edit wars continue on pages like this. The thing that you're missing: These pages are much more important, and the edit wars hurt them.

A note to the good editor who has revised the population figures lately on this and other : There is {{Infobox Hungarian settlement}}, which is probably not worth using here now, but it documents other templates such as {{ksh url}} which links quickly to the KSH. It's only useful in that it gives you what might be a standard form. Unfortunately neither are perfect because there are limitations in the Wikimedia software for injecting stuff into URL links. But nice work there, at least one editor noticed it.

Si Trew (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Article state

This article is in a very mediocre state, so I de-classed it to the "C" quality level. I especially speak about the History chapter. These are the points I've noticed so far:

• Too many images, many of them added just for the sake to add images
• Numerous format errors against WP:Manual of Style
• Numerous parts having no strict relevance. For example, I've just removed the subchapter dealing with "important members of the Bela dynasty" (why to put them here? There's enough information about them in their article, and anyway it'd be more proper in History of Hungary).

I wait for opininions. Ciao and good work.--'''Attilios''' (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Bela dynasty? Where is it? I've never heard about Bela dynasty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Genetics

Okay, its 1% here, 11% there. So N among Hungarians is between 1 and 11% (may I add that often times genetic studies will only take samples from one part of the country, or only from cities and not rural areas, etc.?). But what Stears said is still wrong. None of the surrounding nations of Hungary has ANY substantial amount of N at all- if you look on the y-chromosome haplogroups per ethnic group page, there is pretty much NO N whatsoever among Romanians, Slovaks, Rusyns, Croats, Serbs, Slovenes or Germans. So that is incorrect.

Second, I believe 2006 is QUITE modern, thank you.

Furthermore, N is not attributed to Balto-Slavic groups. Baltic groups have substantial amounts of it because of previous Finnic settlement in the regions. N among Russians is only among Northern Russians (northern being the north of "Old Russia", i.e. Arkhangelsk, Karelia, etc.). So, the statement that Stears left on my talk page, "However, majority of slavic nations had serious finno-ugoric genes.", is just incorrect, as it is only a number of Russified Finnic peoples who have "Finno-Ugric" (no o between the g and r) genes.

With that being said, I am just going to delete the part on the page about the Hungarians not being descended from the Medieval Magyars, as the fact is that WE DON'T REALLY KNOW. It is quite possible that they could be anyways, as most historians affirm that the Pannonian plane was largely unoccupied at the point they reached it. Many people have said genetic tests based on the Y are not always correct for finding descent, especially since Y-haplogroup only shows the male side. Furthermore, Hungary was variously flooded with Slovak, German, Romanian and Serb migrants throughout the years, many of whom have been assimilated. It is widely thought that the Bashkirs were closely related to the original Magyars, even called "two branches of the same nation" (before their linguistic Turkification)- and they only have 2.3% y-chromosome haplogroup N. Considering the German, Jewish, Slovak, Serb and Romanian influence on the Hungarian genome, they could easily still be descended from the original Magyars- yes, genetically. --Yalens (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! With all the edit warring going on, I was hoping someone who knows a lot about the subject would help decipher what should be left in the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 data, all modern (2007 2008 2009 2010) publications shows that many Slavic countries have higher ratio of Finno-Ugric Y and mt DNA haplogroups than Hungary. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.164.43 (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Biological anthropology shows greater similarity between Slavic and the eastern people. Forexample: flatter face structure, wide slavic face etc. In a comparison between Hungarians and surrounding Slavs (Ukraine Slovakia Serbia), the Hungarians have lighter average pigmentation (hair eye skin colour) and larger average stature than surrounding Slavs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.164.43 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all you should follow normal commenting rules and indent your comments if you are replying.

Second, your analysis of the source is faulty. This source is reporting presence not of N, but specifically of N1C1. However, even being so, the source you gave, supports my analysis and not yours. For presence of N1c1, on this website you have given yourself, it says the following, and I may note that it is doing it by COUNTRY and not by people. I have listed what the chart said for Hungary and all the countries surrounding it.

[blockquote]

Hungary is 1% N1c1
Slovakia and Austria are both 0.5% N1c1
Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Poland are aaaaall 0% N1c1
Slovenia is not listed
And, okay, fine, Ukraine has 2% N1c1 (but may I add it also has 5% Q, usually associated with Asiatic populations as well?)

[/blockquote]

So, from this, pretty much my stance is supported, even though this one reference gives a much lower N value (1% versus 10-11%) for Hungarians than our other source. Even the 0.5% in Slovakia and Austria could be actually that the HUNGARIANS in those countries were tested. Finally, dealing with Ukraine, I may add that it has a large number of Turkic placenames, not to mention Crimean Tatars, which are here counted as part of the Ukraine sample. None of this renders it impossible that Hungary has a considerable Magyar contribution to its genetic makeup. I do not deny that there are other strong influences- perhaps by the original Celtic population of the region, by Slavs, by the pre-Indo-Europeans, by Roman migrants, and so on. Perhaps Hungarians aren't even primarily descended from Magyars. The other test says 10-11%, this one says 1%. Bashkirs, meanwhile, are between 2.3% and 17%. In any case, nothing changes the fact that Magyars could have made a substantial contribution to the Hungarian people.--Yalens (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

czech people contained more than 1,5 percent Finno-Ugric. Again, there aren't any modern (2007-2008-2009-2010) scientific researches which are supporting the 10-11% fantastic fantasy ratios.

And don't forget Haplogroup Q, which is central Asian, it is higher in most slavic nation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.164.43 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please use proper indentation. In any case, YOUR SOURCE says 0.5% for Czechs (who don't even border Hungarians really, I put Poles in just as a Slavic people). Second of all, I fail to see how 2006 isn't modern. That's simply absurd, and there is no way around it. Third, Haplogroup Q is insignificant, as it is not linked primarily to Ugric people- the Bashkirs also have 0%. It is Central Asian, and with a small bit of it among Turkic peoples, NOT Ugric peoples. Fourth, you are a sockpuppet, as we all know. Stears555 is banned, and your IP may be banned if you keep editing. --Yalens (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Serbs and romanians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.164.43 (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Population genetics is similar to computer technology. A 4-5 years old article is obsolete. Again all modern genetic sources researches deny the Finno-Ugrian language based origin-theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.107.119 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The eastern slavs have serious mongoloid face forms. The vast majority balkan people have turkic look, with the typical average dark pigmentetions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.107.119 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Genetic relations of European nations.jpg

Genetic kinships of European nations. Hungarians are in yellow (HU)

Slovaks have the highest ratio (3%) of haplogroup M (Mongolid) in Europe . Hungarians have 0% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadruplum (talk • contribs) 11:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed with the Eastern Europe article

The Eastern Europe article is fraught with errors, mislabels and slanted facts as if much of it was written by ultraconservatives during the Cold War from an ethnocentric position. If you agree with that Hungary is a Central European state rather than a Soviet satellite, please assist in rewording/correcting the article lead and body. Gregorik (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Subjective language invoking national prejudice

The History section on the Ottoman wars mentions "anti-Habsburg /i.e. anti-Austrian/ . . . uprisings". "Anti-Habsburg" and "anti-Austrian" are two very different things. For whatever reason, I'm unable to edit the article, but I would urge someone who can to remove "/i.e. anti-Austrian/" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.135.169 (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself

It says at the top that Hungary lost 5 of its 10 biggest cities.

Later it says "Hungary lost 8 of its 10 biggest Hungarian cities." The source attached to this comment doesn't back up the statement.

The correct answer is 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.250.66 (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Victims?

The articles says: In 1241–1242, the kingdom received a major blow with the Mongol (Tatar) Invasion. Up to half of Hungary's then population of 2,000,000 were victims of the invasion.[30] What does that mean? Killed? Driven out? I don't see the the back up in the reference, which is just another full history article in Encyclopedia Britannica.com Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.50.27 (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The source says it. The country lost about half its population, the incidence ranging from 60 percent in the Alföld (100 percent in parts of it) to 20 percent in Transdanubia; only parts of Transylvania and the northwest came off fairly lightly. and before that In the interior too, natural growth and continued immigration swelled the population, which by 1200 had risen to the then large figure of some two million. Qorilla (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Template

Something is wrong with the main infobox tempalte. It's not displaying. Not sure how to fix it, but I thought i'd let someone know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.85.121.208 (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Article Length

The article seems to long and unfocused. There are several opportunities to transfer content in subarticles. Italiano111 (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Due to excessive picture display, some of them had to be removed in order to maintain a higher quality better and readability. Please see good nation articles to compare. Italiano111 (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources

"Hungary's financial difficulties and the growing inequalities and hardships have led many to consider a return to the socialism of the past. Some opinion polls show that a majority of Hungarians who lived during the socialist era favor a return of the Communist party."

Which opinion polls? It is quite a heavy statement, please add the source, or I will delete it. Misaerius —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

No references for 90% of Religion section !!

Not a single reference for the first seven of nine paragraphs of the Religion section. This stuff needs to be cited, or removed! Also some dead links in the footnotes should be fixed or removed. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Communist era/Magyarization

I replaced this statement to page of Demographics of Hungary: There was an enforced Magyarization in Communist Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Official renaming

Now the name of the country has changed from Republic of Hungary to Hungary officially. Someone should clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.211.187 (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The change of the official name will go into effect in January 1, 2012. Kope (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong flag

This is the flag of Pakistan Change the flag — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.220.216 (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Louis role.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Louis role.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandals

I hope the Wikipedia admins can make this page protected, due the lot of vandal edits recently!

Thank you!

--Csendesmark (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"Great power"

I removed the "needs clarification" tag because I wasn't sure why it was added. Either the editor who added is isn't sure what a great power is or wasn't sure if Hungary qualified. Hungary was easily a great power before WW1, the Austro-Hungarian empire had significant influence both in Europe and the world. Pascal (talk) 18:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hungary 1550.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Hungary 1550.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Lechfeld

A later defeat at the Battle of Lechfeld in 955 signaled a provisory end to most campaigns on foreign territories, at least towards the West.

— German historian Hermann Schreiber, an antipode of the ethnocentric nationalist school of German histori0graphy, suggests in Land Im Osten (Econ-Verlag, 1961) that the Battle of Lechfeld paradoxically was instrumental in the founding of the Hungarian state in that it forced the Hungarians / Magyars to abandon nomadic forays and conquests and adopt a settled life on the Danubian plain. Schreiber goes so far as to speculate that "ohne die Niederlage der Ungarn auf dem Lechfield gäbe es heute kein ungarisches Volk" (pg. 174).

Sca (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Most widely spoken non-Indoreuopean language in Europe

The introduction mentions that Hungarian is "the most widely spoken non-Indo-European language in Europe". I doubt the validity of this claim. With about 8 million turks in East Thrace and another 9 million elsewhere in Europe, I would think that Turkish is spoken more widely. (Reliable data for the number of Turkish speakers in Europe, outside of Turkey may be difficult to come by.) Maybe somebody can find more sources either rejecting or confirming the claim? 195.240.70.251 (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Wrong information

The picture shown under paragraph "Hungarian economy today" file name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Euro_accession.svg is not correct and has to be updated or removed since it is misleading and not showing anything without the map legend. It is not clear what does it show, not members, not eurozone, not EU, not Shengen area, then what does it mean "Euro_accession"? Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mafabris (talk • contribs) 07:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"On the eve of the arrival of the Hungarians" - wrong

The word "Hungary" appeared before the arrival of the Magyars into Hungary, and the Magyars were not Hungarians at that moment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_people

"The exonym "Hungarian" is thought to be derived from the Bulgar-Turkic On-Ogur (meaning "ten" Ogurs),[18] which was the name of the Utigur Bulgar tribal confederacy that ruled the eastern parts of Hungary after the Avars, and prior to the arrival of Magyars." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.158.56 (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean however if you check page of Onogurs you will see that the theme of Onogurs is a little bit obscure. Sometimes Onogurs were Bulgars, but sometimes the scholars refer to the Hungarians (Magyars).Fakirbakir (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Another thing(from page of Hungarian people): "The Hungarians must have belonged to the Onogur tribal alliance and it is quite possible they became its ethnic majority". This moment could happen before 895.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

kiss-picture

"a traditional and widely known communist-style kiss-greeting "
How is it "communist style" ? I thought it was just "russian style".
I mean, maybe it's not as common nowadays as it used to be, but it doesn't come from the communist era. In the XVIIth century already, the kiss on the lips between guests, male or female, were very common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.2.15.230 (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You may be right. I think that the MDF poster "Tovarisi Konec" would be a much better illustration of the events in the early 1990s. Koertefa (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

New constitution (2012)

With the new constitution now in force, is it right to refer to the "Fourth Republic," and do the infoboxes etc. need to be changed to reflect this? P M C 14:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No, its not called "fourth republic" anywhere. --maxval (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's quite peculiar. I'm not disputing the veracity of what you say, it's just odd that the country has been reconstituted yet apparently still refers to itself in terms of its previous constitution.

P M C 17:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Saying "second republic" or "third republic" was never an official name, it has been in use only since 1989 by some politicians. There is not a single official document about "second", "third" or "fourth republic". In fact, it is even not fully correct to say "third republic", as OFFICIALLY there were only two republics, from 1946-1949 and 1989-2011. (But the peoples republic of 1918-1919 is widely considered as the "first", this is how the 1989-2011 one was counted as third. Now, the expression "fourth republic" is used only by part of the opposition to the actual government and it does NOT refer to the new constitution. --maxval (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There were 3 republics "officially". The first one lasted from 16 November 1918 to 21 March 1919 (Hungarian Democratic Republic).Fakirbakir (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Only two times the country was called officially "Hungarian Republic": 1946-1949 and 1989-2011. There was a republic too in 1918-1919, 1919, 1949-1989 and since 2012, but in these 4 periods the country was/is not called "Hungarian Republic" officially. --maxval (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Official names of Hungary:

• 1000-1918: Magyar Királyság ("Hungarian Kingdom")

• 1918-1919: Magyar Népköztársaság ("Hungarian People's Republic", translated to English also as "Hungarian Democratic Republic")

• 1919: Magyarországi Szocialista Szövetséges Tanácsköztársaság ("Socialist Federative Soviet Republic of Hungary")

• 1919-1946: Magyar Királyság ("Hungarian Kingdom")

• 1946-1949: Magyar Köztársaság ("Hungarian Republic")

• 1949-1989: Magyar Népköztársaság ("Hungarian People's Republic")

• 1989-2011: Magyar Köztársaság ("Hungarian Republic", sometimes translated to English as "Republic of Hungary", but this is not linguisticly correct, however this was the officially used English version by Hungarian embassies)

• 2012-: Magyarország ("Hungary")

Why would "Republic of Hungary" be linguistically incorrect? All the official country names follow the form "republic of something". (The only exception is the Czech Republic and that's only because there is no short form for the country name.) – Alensha ^talk 01:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

-Czechia/Česko is the short form of the Czech Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.31.15 (talk) 03:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The name of a country and its form of government are two different things. Hungary is still a republic, even if its official name does not contain the word "republic" any more. Changing the constitution in itself also does not change the form of the government. Therefore, it is still the third republic of Hungary. Koertefa (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Alensha, you are wrong, "Magyar Köztársaság" means "Hungarian Republic" and NOT "Republic of Hungary". The pattern is not always "republic of something" in all cases. Please note that e. g. France or Italy are called "French Republic" and "Italian Republic", NOT "Republic of France" or "Republic of Italy". And the English translations closely follow the originals. The only exception was Hungary, where the linguistically incorrect version was used as the official English translation. This is an interesting problem in Hungarian too, in Hungarian many country names are translated wrongly. I see you speak Hungarian, so you can read my article in Hungarian about this matter here: http://bircaman2.nolblog.hu/archives/2010/11/13/orszagnevek_kiegeszites/ :-) And the Czech Republic is not the only case where there is no short version or the short version is not usually used: and it must be noted that the short version is not used only in English, in Czech there is a short version "Česko" and in Hungarian too: "Csehország". --maxval (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Koertefa, it depends on the definition what is the "third republic". The Soviet Republic of 1919 was also "republic", and the Peoples Republic of 1949-1989 was a republic too, however they are never called "second, third, fourth, fifth, etc." republic. Strictly speaking, only the 1946-1949 and the 1989-2011 are the first and the second republic, and it is usual to include also the 1918-1919 Peoples Republic too. However there is no consensus, and this matter has no juridical relevance. So, it can be said the the third republic is over since 3 days and it can be said also that it didnt cease to exist - both opinions can be explained. This is not a juridical matter, this is a pure political discussion. --maxval (talk) 09:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not important which republic it is now. But it's important to write in the article about the new Constitution. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with Maxval and D.M.: it is not a significant question whether it is the 3rd or the 4th republic of Hungary, since there could be many arguments pro and contra (influenced by current political ideas), however, this does not have any juridical relevance, as Maxval pointed out. The important thing is, as D.M. highlighted, that Hungary has a new constitution and that should definitely be reflected in the article, independently of our personal opinions about this event. Koertefa (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think no country writes in its constitution "first", "second", ... Republic. Nonetheless, without taking any political position, I think that 1 Constitution = 1 State, thus making "Hungary" a "new state" (should it be called "Fourth Rep.", it's to be discuted) succeeding the (third) "Rep. of Hungary". Look at it : France (I can deal with it, it is where I come from), France changed for exemple its Constitution in 1958, going from the "fourth" French Rep. to the "fifth" French Rep., but staying a Republic officially named "French Republic" (even if, I agree, the 4th Rep. was a parlamentary rep. and the 5th Rep. is a semi-presidential rep.). SenseiAC (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.27.148.23 (talk)

No, changing the constitution doesnt make a new state. Hungary is the SAME state since 1918. New states form when there is a state succession or a totally new state is formed, as e. g. in 1918, when Austria-Hungary disolved into two states: Austria and Hungary. Changing the states name, the constitution, the laws, the form of government is NOT a state change. France is the same state before and after 1958 too. --maxval (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, I probably didn't use the good word. Anyway, I think you understand what I mean : even if it is the same "state" there is a new constitution and thus a new political organisation, in a way or another. Else there wouldn't have need a new constitution. --SenseiAC (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In reality, the truth is that there is only small changes in Hungarys political organization with the new constitution. The big change is in symbolism: now there is a politically motivated preambule to the constitution with some nonsense sentences in it. There is no change about how the president is elected, how the parliament is formed, etc. --maxval (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

In 1999 Hungary joined NATO, not EU.

"In a 1997 national referendum, 85% voted in favour of Hungary joining the European Union, which followed two years later" - should read NATO instead of European Union! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.190.66 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed this. --D.M. from Ukraine (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 January 2012

50.100.166.92 (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No request made--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 January 2012

There is no source for the Hungarians stopping the second mongolian invasion. Hence it should be removed. 130.243.214.101 (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Thanks for your observation. Stopping the second Mongol invasion is a historical fact, it should not be deleted, I am going to add references to scientific publications. If you are interested: the later (mostly unsuccessful) Mongol campaigns against Medieval Europe are also discussed in the Mongol invasion of Europe article. In general, if there are statements that, in your opinion, need citations, first a tag should be added. This will give time to the editors to include suitable references. Koertefa (talk) 04:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

History of the Hungarian economy

I have put the "History of the Hungarian economy" section to the page of Economy of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

rising tide of anti-semticism and anti-Roma rhetoric needs inclusion

This article entirely ignores the shocking rise of fascism in Hungary and the movement toward genocidal rhetoric. This really needs to be addressed as it has been extensively covered on western media.72.74.251.159 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Bold text== Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries ==

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:13 (UTC)

Overlinking

This article is heavily overlinked. WP:OVERLINK provides some guidelines. Zyxwv99 (talk) 02:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

what sources do you need?

you can check the links... Paul Erdős, John von Neumann, Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, teller, andfrom Twelve (not thirteen) Hungarian or Hungarian-born scientists received the Nobel Prize, 7 were jews: Avram Hershko (israeli), Imre Kertész, George Andrew Olah, John Harsanyi, Dennis Gabor, Eugene Wigner and George de Hevesy, and many others. and my grammer is bad, you can put it in another way, but keep the meaning and the facts

This does not prove your statement that read as the majority of outstanding Hungarian scientists are/were Jews. Even if correct, this would likely violate WP:NPOV. Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, Erdos never emigrated to the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.72.23 (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Stop being a technocrat

These are the facts and this is it. entry about Hungary requires a thorough reference to the hungarian Jews who have contributed enormously in every field, and had terible anti-Semitic persecution. יניבפור (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

ok, I have a compromise, although it does an injustice to the facts יניבפור (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

ha?

"(Jewish nationality (and state of Israel) didn't exist that time when they were born.Only the Jewish ethnic group&religion&culture existed until 1948. The most important mathematics had no Jewish backround,and they considered themselves Hungarians"

Who taught you that? It has no connection to Israel (it's not really related to the topic). I think you should open a book before you give an opinion on a topic you do not know about. Most of the prominent hungarian scientists In the twentieth century had Jewish background. You argue with facts. In any case the facts are such (from wikipedia):

Von Neumann was born to wealthy Jewish parents ("The mathematician Jean Dieudonné called von Neumann "the last of the great mathematicians",[3] while Peter Lax described him as possessing the most "fearsome technical prowess" and "scintillating intellect" of the century,[4] and Hans Bethe stated "I have sometimes wondered whether a brain like von Neumann's does not indicate a species superior to that of man")

Leó Szilárd was born in 1898 to middle-class parents in Budapest, Hungary as the son of a civil engineer. His parents, both Jewish. (inventor who conceived the nuclear chain reaction in 1933, patented the idea of a nuclear reactor with Enrico Fermi, and in late 1939 wrote the letter for Albert Einstein's signature that resulted in the Manhattan Project that built the atomic bomb)

"Eugene Wigner was born in Budapest, Austria-Hungary, into a middle class Jewish family (Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963)"

"Paul Erdős was born in Budapest, Austria-Hungary on March 26, 1913. His parents were both Jewish mathematicians from a vibrant intellectual community". "Because anti-Semitism was increasing, he moved that same year to Manchester, England, to be a guest lecturer".("Erdős published more papers than any other mathematician in history")

"Edward Teller was born in Budapest, Hungary (then Austria-Hungary) into a Jewish family in the year 1908."

Theodore von Kármán was born into a Jewish family at Budapest, Austria-Hungary. One of his ancestors was Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel. ("He is regarded as the outstanding aerodynamic theoretician of the twentieth century")

"Dennis Gabor was born as Günszberg Dénes, into a Jewish family in Budapest, Hungary" (Nobel Prize in Physics (1971)

Avram Hershko Born in Karcag, Hungary. Hershko emigrated to Israel in 1950. Nobel Prize in Chemistry (2004)

"Imre Kertész is a Hungarian Jewish author, Holocaust concentration camp survivor, and recipient of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Literature"

George Andrew Olah was born to Jewish parents in Budapest, Hungary. Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1994.

John Harsanyi. Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (1994). "As a pharmacology student, Harsanyi escaped conscription into the Hungarian Army which, as a person of Jewish descent, would have meant forced labor. However, in 1944 (after the fall of the Horthy regime and the seizure of power by the Arrow Cross Party) his military deferment was cancelled and he was compelled to join a forced labor unit on the Eastern Front.[3][5] After seven months of forced labor, when the Nazi authorities decided to deport his unit to a concentration camp in Austria, John Harsanyi managed to escape and found sanctuary for the rest of the war in a Jesuit monastery"

Hevesy György was born in Budapest, Hungary to a wealthy and ennobled Hungarian Jewish[1] family, the fifth of eight children to his parents Lajos (Louis) Bischitz and Baroness Eugenia (Jenny) Schossberger (ennobled as "De Tornya"). Grandparents from both sides of the family had provided the presidents of the Jewish community of Pest. Nobel Prize for Chemistry (1943).

Seven of the twelve hungarian nobel prize winners were jews.

יניבפור (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Half of them were not Jewish background, only the particle nuclear physicists. Many of the nuclear physicists were only partly jewish descendant. Moreover they were not church-goer, and didn't grow up in Jewish culture. The biggest mathematicans and inventors haven't jewish origin: Kálmán Tihanyi, Ányos Jedlik, Farkas Bolyai, János Bolyai, Loránt Eötvös, Ottó Bláthy, . Rado Kövesligethy, György Jendrassik, József Galamb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.27.251 (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is no contradiction between hungarian and hungarian-jewish, because both are hungarian, but only hungarian-jewish is also jewish. Hungarians have very mixed backgrounds: magyar, german, jewish, south-slav, west-slav, armenian and others. Many hungarians had/have double or ambivalent or even fluctuating ethnical identities. Usuallay a "magyar" is somebody who considers himself as that and have some "real" magyar ancestors, usually in a minority among his forefathers. And the genious hungarian persons mentioned above with overwhelmingly (hungarian-)jewish ethnical forefathers were interestingly enough mostly christians: Hungarian-jewish Nobel Prize Winners according to religion: Bárány (jewish), De Hevesy (born roman catholic), Gábor (lutheran), Wigner (lutheran), Polanyi (?), Oláh (?), Harsányi (born roman catholic), Kertész (Jewish), Herskó (jewish). Kerész had one Sabbatarian grandparent (= magyar) etc. Hungarian jews have always to some degre been ethnical magyar since they partially, even though in a minority, descend from the Kazars and especially their nobles who converted. The 8th tribe of the original magyar were Kazars! Earlier this was an advanced speculation, but today a look at Eupedia shows that Askenazi have 5% Q-genes, even higher than magyars today! Conquering Árpád-magyars had high levels of Q-genes, associated with inner Asia and pre-proto and early magyars, like the Huns, Avars and Àrpáds people!

László of Stockholm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.224.110 (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Why are you looking for "Q - genes"? Why do you think Magyars are from Inner Asia? I think all nations ( British, Austrian, Serb, Slovak, Russian etc...) have mixed origins. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"Hungarians have very mixed backgrounds: magyar, german, jewish, south-slav, west-slav, armenian and others." But they are not ethnic Hungarians, just Hungarian citizens. Have you ever read population genetics? Slavic people have higher ratio of mongoloid haplogroup markers, balkan nations have high ratio of middle-eastern and sub-saharan haplogroup markers. However Hungarian markers show especially European gene pool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.197.86 (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

George de Hevesy was born to a wealthy and ennobled Roman Catholic of Hungarian Jewish descent, so he rasied as catholic, and John Harsanyi born as Catholic, and Eugene Wigner converted to Lutheranism, and John von Neumann converted to catholisim, Dennis Gabor was rasied in lutheranism. these can't be can be classified as Jewish at least in sence of religion, and as i know that if any person born Jewish, who practices Christianity, is not a Jew any more.Jobas (talk) 14:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, September 2012

Hungarian is not the most widely-spoken non Indo-European language in Europe; it is Turkish. Even if we consider Europe in geographical terms, not politically, the Turkish speaking population of Turkey in the European (continent) territories of the country is more than the overall population of Hungary. If we add to this the number of Turkish speaking minorities in the Balkans and the Turks that emigrated to central and western European countries for economic reasons and live in those countries (a considerable part of them as citizens of those countries) the number of Turkish-speaking people in Europe almost double that of Hungarian (or Magyar, a language relative to Turkish) speaking people. So we should either eliminate that reference or change the word "Europe" to "European Union". Thanks. --E4024 (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Magyar is not related to Turkish; a few loan-words between the two does not mean they are related. Linguists consider them unrelated.HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I am going to change the word "Europe" with the words "European Union" by tomorrow if there are no convincing arguments to stop me. We see that some sources use "Europe" as a synonim to "European Union" but here in WP we know that it is not correct... --E4024 (talk) 10:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, E4024, for your comment. In general, I have no objection against the change, but before we do so, could you please provide some reliable sources about the number of Turkish speaking people in Europe (continent)? A verifiable source that explicitly states that Turkish is the most widely-spoken non Indo-European language in Europe would be even better. Thanks again, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

We are not speaking about the "Turkey" or "Turkish (language) articles. (Read them BTW.) Do you want me to find a source that shows Hungary is a member of the EU? Although that is as clear as the fact about the first place of Turkish speakers (as a non-Indo-European language) in Europe... All the best. --E4024 (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Find and read this book. (Note that it is dedicated to admin Mike Cline. :-) Do not forget to add the populations of the Turkish provinces in Europe: Edirne, Kırklareli, Tekirdağ, Çanakkale and İstanbul. Don't worry, when we write "the sky is blue" it is not considered "original research"; especially if you consider that you can always find a written source that makes ref to "the sky was red that day". Never use those sources for very clear issues... --E4024 (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Last but not the least, if you read the cited article again (paragraph 4) the question of context is clearer; the authors refer to the "European Union" as "Europe.". So I will do simply that, replace Europe with the European Union. --E4024 (talk) 10:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read the original source currently cited in the article, and it is not clear to me that the authors intended to refer only to the European Union, instead of Europe, the continent. Paragraph 4 indeed contains sentences about the EU, but this does not mean that all previous paragraphs also only talked about the EU. I do not think that the sentence "Turkish is the most widely-spoken non Indo-European language in Europe" is self-evident and similar to the one "the sky is blue". Since we have a source which claims that "Hungarian is the most widely-spoken non Indo-European language in Europe", we shouldn't just change it, unless we have very good reasons to think that it is false. I still ask you that, please, provide some sources about the number of people speaking Turkish in Europe (the continent), otherwise the term "Europe" should remain in the text. I looked at the book you have cited, but could not easily find such an information in that. Which page should I look at? Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

largest natural grasslands in Europe (Hortobágy). ? Really?

Besides the problem of the external link being DEAD, the steppes in Russia - unless there has been some sort of huge die-off in the grass there - would seem to be several times larger than the Hungarian plain? After all, Batu's Golden Horde resided there instead of returning to Hungary after Mongke was elected Grand Khan. Note this statement from a study on grasslands: "The five countries with the largest grassland area are Australia, the Russian Federation, China, the United States, and Canada."HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Well if you doubt this info, you can add citation needed tag, and if no reference appear in some time, remove it. But this is strange, I remember that there was a source about this data... Adrian (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

bombs

the world is falling and we need to stop bombings fast or we wont have a life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.122.1 (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but what has it got to do with Hungary?--Ltbuni (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

I'd like to make some remarks on the official language of Hungary issue, 'cause it provokes very hot debates in the articles dealing with Hungarians with this or that (mainly Slovakian) origins. The question of the Hungarian language as an object of the legislation has a long story, and the rise of the Hungarian language can not be separated from the demands of the other nationalistic movements (Supplex Libellus Valachorum etc):perhaps we should shed more light on these. As far as I know, the first articles concerning the usage of the Hungarian language are as follows: 1 1791. évi XVI. törvényczikk: promise of the king, that in the official affairs the Hungarian will be used 2. 1836. évi III. tc - which made the Hungarian official language in the higher courts as well and in the publication of the laws, and in the birth registers - where there use Hungarian.http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=5148 3. 1844. évi II. tc - Hungarian is the only official language http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=5255

As far as I'm concerned, the same requests from nationalities were refused by the king --Ltbuni (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolution of 1848

In my opinion the sentence: "Under governor and president Lajos Kossuth and the first Prime Minister, Lajos Batthyány, the House of Habsburg was dethroned." is false and deceptive. Lajos Batthyány resigned on 2 October 1848, while the dethronization of the Habsburgs took place much later, on 14 April 1849, when Kossuth was really the governor, but he was also the head of the cabinet as President of the Committee of National Defence (List of Prime Ministers of Hungary). I think the detronization's mention should be placed between the Hungarian successes and the Russian invasion (as it really happened). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nembabra (talk • contribs) 11:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving article

There are too many images in this article. This is a good article and for English readers the text is excellent. However the placing of images into every available space spoils the article.

Here's just a personal view of some of the image issues:

The right column of the article looks like a continuous strip of images. I would like to see more gaps in the right column. White space is not just empty space - white space is a powerful formatting weapon and an ideal way to improve articles.

There are 10 maps - though each map is related to the article I think 10 is probably too many and certain (less important) maps should be left out so as to tighten the focus on the text.

The KMZ and C-17 military photos really do nothing to improve the article.

The Hills in Baranya and the Great Hungarian Plain also do nothing to improve the article.

How about using a gallery (strip) for the food images. At the end of the food section you can have the 3 food images in a gallery row (actually you can probably add two more food images if you use the default thumb size in a gallery row).

These are just some ideas from a readers perspective since I am not here to edit this article in anyway.

Still a great article and thanks to all the editors who put it together.

Sluffs (talk) 09:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, and I agree that some of the images could be removed, since there are a bit too many of them. I will also take a look at it. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I had a short look at various articles on other countries. I only looked at the USA, UK and Sweden. The Sweden article looked good to me. It has many images and I think the layout has a nice balance between text and images. I noticed that the Sweden article does have a right column of images similar to this article so I thought it might be an idea to provide a link here to allow editors a chance to view it:

Sweden - Article on Sweden at Wikipedia

Sluffs (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Chronology in 1914 to 1941 section

This sentence:

"On 4 June 1920, the Treaty of Trianon was signed..."

precedes

"In January 1920, elections were held for a unicameral assembly."

Surely it should be the January elections then the Treaty of Trianon signed in June.

Sluffs (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, but I am not sure if this should be changed: the two paragraphs talk about two different topics (Treaty of Trianon and Miklós Horthy, respectively). The timeline of the second paragraph (which talks about Horthy) indeed starts a bit earlier than the first one (about Trianon), however, it's timeline ends much latter (based on which it succeeds the other one). Any suggestion how could it be reorganized? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I actually do mainly music articles so I have to list the record releases chronologically but I'm not too sure if it applies here.

I'm here by accident and spotted a spelling mistake or something small that needed fixing. As all editors know one single edit turns into another then another. I'm not too sure if I should be doing this article since I have no previous experience of the article. Hope no one minds me proposing some ideas - no intention towards the article was implied.

Sluffs (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

2010s updates

I'm getting sick of the reverts without rationales on this page, what's going on? The section "History" ended with 2004 and carries a warning "This article's factual accuracy may be compromised due to out-of-date information", I've just added some short recent informations striving to the best NPOV possible by merely quoting (without comments or interpretations) an obviously NPOV report (by an international body, very cautious). If you have better information on recent history, please contribute to the section instead of just disrupting valid NPOV relevant content with reliable sources. Thank you. Nemo 21:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Nemo, your addition (especially the quotation) discusses a way too specific, actual political issue, which does not have a place in this overview article. This article is a *general* outline on Hungary, its more than thousand years old history, its economy, geography, science, education, language, culture (architecture, music, literature, cuisine, folk art), military, sport, etc. As you can see, it is a *very* broad overview of the entity called Hungary. In this context, this quote from a European Parliament resolution is a tiny issue, which has a highly debatable importance for this article. There are hundreds of historical events (battles, treaties, leaders), scientists, inventors, poets, writers, musicians, painters, castles, museums, theaters, libraries, art works, sport events, etc., which are way more important for Hungary than this EU resolution (which is undoubtedly an actual political issue), still they are not present in this article due to the lack of space. On the other hand, we can of course present some sentences about the current government. In this case we should briefly mention some of their achievements, failures, etc., and along with it we can also mention that some critics worry about the fundamental rights. However, since this EU resolution is a very small issue with respect to this high-level overview article, I could accept at most one short sentence about it. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. I agree that the article needs to be a very general overview, however in the section in question there are 5 paragraphs on just a couple years (1989-1991) and then basically nothing on the following 20 years, which made someone else (not me) request an update. It's not unreasonable to have a couple paragraphs on the last few years. If you feel something is insufficiently covered, please continue contributing to the article so as to balance it and allow e.g. the request for updates tag to be removed.

On the merits, I don't know what you mean by "an actual political issue", the whole section is about political facts. It's also simply ridiculous to call the European Parliament, OHCHR, "the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, as well [...] the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of right to freedom of opinion and expression" as "some critics", so I'm restoring the previous more precise language. Without removing the new sentence on the new constitution (which is not really the main point of the criticism, as far as I can see), despite some lack of references and imprecise language (such as "major law" instead of "cardinal law" as in the resolution), I'm also restoring the conclusion of the EU Parliament resolution, which is very syntetic and precise, allowing us to avoid POV paraphrasing and imprecision. If you feel it's still too long, it can probably be shortened by removing some references to the specific TEU articles. --Nemo 18:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The whole section on the history since 1989 is quite messy, not ideal at all. Of course you shouldn't remove the new constitution fact, adopting a new constitution is an event of historical significance. The quotation is too long to be included in the main country article. There are many interesting historic documents that we could quote but there is simply not enough place for it in this article. Of course technically there is no space limit, but an article needs to be navigable comfortably and it means that we have to cut details when covering such a broad topic as a whole country. Please put the details (including the quotation) into a relevant article of smaller scope, perhaps about the second Orbán government or whichever you find most fitting. Qorilla (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it's not ideal, that's why we should work on it as we are now doing (thanks for joining).

You're right about conciseness and the importance of a new constitution: I've now borrowed the very concise and precise language from the EU Parliament resolution, which covers also the new constitution, to make the paragraph even more concise. If you're aware of better summaries of similar relevance, it would be very nice to know them so that we can improve further. I've moved the specification on the new constitution to a footnote because the statement still lacks a source; the importance of a fact doesn't condone the lack of sources, it rather makes sources more important. --Nemo 11:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You are approaching this issue too much from the EU Parliament resolution. This is not a news article and we don't need to report about the resolution. We need to write about Hungary, and we are in the History section. The report itself is not of enough historical relevance to have it as the main point of a paragraph. The two thirds majority election win and the subsequent substantial changes of the legal framework including a new constitution are of historic relevance. The thing about the Tavares-report and the resolution of the EU Parliament is only a sidenote to these events and not the main point. Qorilla (talk) 13:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the resolution covers more than those events. It's also not a recentist piece of news, but a comprehensive report on multiple years of events, matured in several months of elaboration. Again, if you find a better summary of the events of these few years please provide it, otherwise stop pointing to a non-existent ideal alternative solution. --Nemo 07:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The EU Parliament is a political institution with members who belong to political parties and make political decisions. It is not an NPOV source. We can report about it in an NPOV way, but for that the resolution itself has to be the topic. If we write the exact words of the report then that part is essentially a piece of text about the resolution and not about the 3 years. But the resolution itself is not as important an event to be discussed in such detail in the main country article. There are several other smaller-scope articles that are suitable for it. If we go to that level of detail where it is appropriate to quote this report, on that level we also would need to write about the specific changes that are criticized, the response to the criticism etc. We can not do this here.

So again, what we need to write about are the most important things about Hungary, more specifically about the most important historical events in Hungary. We want to write about 3 years now. What is historically significant in these 3 years? That a party won an unusually high number of seats and then they adopted a new constitution and changed lot of laws, and this caused criticism from international bodies. On this level of detail these are the significant events. The exact words of the EU resolution are not historically significant enough to be put there. Again, this is the main country article that describes all kinds of stuff about Hungary. Qorilla (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

OK. The last sentence MUST be deleted. "These modifications have been criticized by the European Parliament[77] and other international bodies[78] regarding the situation of fundamental rights." This is an opinion. It has to be deleted. 84.0.201.124 (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hungary/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria: 1. Well written?: NO WAY. List of the administrative divisions and of the public hollydays should not be on the main page of a country. Introduction is way too long. History might not be too long, but it is obviously overrepresented in the article (i.e. this article is not entitled History of Hungary). 2. Factually accurate?: It is GROSSLY underreferenced. There a lot of places where there is one reference for an entire subsection. I guess means it fails to be factually acurate 3. Broad in coverage?: There is nothing about education. Economy section barely gives some information (come on, it is a member of EU, it must have something relevant) 4. Neutral point of view?: 5. Article stability? 6. Images?: the article almost abuses the use of images. The images should be relevant more than a little to the subsection. Please check other articles on countries that are allready a GA. When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.--Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 20:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)