The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
List of Magyarized geographical names was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 October 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Magyarization. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have removed the quote from the lead which stated that "More than 1.5 million economic migrants moved to the United States from Kingdom of Hungary between the 1900-1914 period. This mass migration also had huge effect on the ratios of ethnic minorities in Kingdom of Hungary, because more than 2/3 part of these immigrants in the USA belonged to the ethnic minorities". The main reason of my removal was that it looked very much like original research, as the cited source (Anna Mazurkiewicz: East Central Europe in Exile Volume 1: Transatlantic Migrations, Publisher: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014, Pages: 141-142) only talks about the minorities among the migrants to US, but it does not talk about its "huge effect on the ratios of ethnic minorities in the Kingdom of Hungary". If someone thinks that the book does talk about the "huge effect" of migration to the US on the ratio of ethic minorities of the Kingdom of Hungary, please, provide the exact quote here. Thank you, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 00:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Because name changing was always a result of personal decision, and it was not directed by state or laws/decrees. The better usage would be: X Y people changed their names, which express that it was their own personal decision.-- CumbererStone ( talk) 19:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
-zation -ation -sation etc... Latin inflections usually refer to a forced process, since there were no such law decree order etc... it happened with personal decisions. Therefore it sounds a weird and incorrect term for name changes.-- CumbererStone ( talk) 12:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
There were not many Hungarian schools in the villages where minorities represented the majority. It happened only in cities, which had traditionally Hungarian and German majority. Remember the fall of the famous Lex Apponyi law, the teachers of the ethnic minority village schools could not speak Hungarian, thus the teachers could not teach the Hungarian language for the minority children. The number of Slovak/Romanian speaking villages increased during the great (imagined) oppression in the 1867-1910 period. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CumbererStone (
talk •
contribs)
15:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Ministers with Foreign names 1867 – 1944
dr. Pauler Tivadar Szlávy József dr. Trefort Ágoston Wlassics Gyula Berzeviczy Albert Jankovich Béla Haller István
Klebelsberg Kuno Hóman Bálint Rajniss Ferenc
Aulich Lajos
Wekerle Sándor
Linder Béla Schnetzer Ferenc Friedrich István Sréter István Belitska Sándor Rőder Vilmos
Vukovics Sebő Pauler Tivadar Perczel Béla Fabiny Teofil Plósz Sándor Gegus Gusztáv Günther Antal Wekerle Sándor Grecsák Károly
Ferdinandy Gyula Vladár Gábor Valentiny Ágoston Ries István
Wenckheim Béla Rajner Pál Hieronymi Károly Ugron Gábor Wekerle Sándor
Samassa Adolf Beniczky Ödön Semadam Sándor Ferdinandy Gyula Klebelsberg Kuno Rakovszky Iván Scitovszky Béla Keresztes-Fischer Ferenc Jaross Andor Schell Péter
Duschek Ferenc Szlávy József Teleszky János Wekerle Sándor Gratz Gusztáv
Miákits Ferenc Peidl Gyula Grünn János Walko Lajos Bud János Reményi-Schneller Lajos Gordon Ferenc
Somssich József Gratz Gusztáv Wenckheim Béla Scitovszky Tibor Walko Lajos Roszner Ervin
Klauzál Gábor Gorove István Trefort Ágoston Feilitzsch Artúr Nyisztor György Vántus Károly Rubinek Gyula Mayer János Schandl Károly Marschall Ferenc Sztranyavszky Sándor Jurcsek Béla
Horánszky Nándor Láng Lajos Hieronymi Károly Friedrich István Heinrich Ferenc Rubinek Gyula Herrmann Miksa Bud János -- CumbererStone ( talk) 08:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
In July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted the world's first laws on ethnic and minority rights. It gave minorities the freedom to use their mothertongue at local administration, at tribunals, in schools, in community life and even within the national guard of non-Magyar councils. However these laws were overturned after the united Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. After the Kingdom of Hungary reached the Compromise with the Habsburg Dynasty in 1867, one of the first acts of its restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868).
The situation of minorities in Hungary were muchmore better than in contemporary pre WW1 Europe. Other highly multiethnic /multinational countries were: France Russia and UK.
See the multi-national UK:
The situation of Scottish Irish and Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language,only English language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. The contemporary Irish question and tensions are well documented. In Wales Welsh children were beaten by their teachers if they spoke Welsh among each others. This was the infamous “Welsh Not” policy... The situation of Ireland was even a more brutal story. It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England.
See the multiethnic France:
In the era of the Great French revolution, only 25% of the population of Kingdom of France could speak the French language as mothertongue. In 1870, France was still similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to Spanish languages or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools, minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public administration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period!!!
The situation in German Empire was well known (Polish territories and Sorbs)
Just see the high contrast between Kingdom of Hungary and contemporary pre WW1-era Europe:
Magyarization was not so harsh as the contemporary western European situation, because the minorities were defended by minority rights and laws. Contemporary Western European legal systems did not know the minority rights, therefore they loudly and proudly covered up their minorities. 1.Were there state sponsored minority schools in Western European countries? NO. 2. How many official languages existed in Western-European states? Only 1 official language! 3. Could minorities use their languages in the offices of public administration in self-governments , in tribunals in Western Europe? No, they couldn't. 4. Did the minorities have own fractions and political parties in the western European parliaments ? No, no they hadn't. 5. What about newspapers of ethnic minorities in Western Europe? They did not exist in the West.... We can continue these things to the infinity.--
CumbererStone (
talk)
16:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I already gave a chess mat for the propnents of the "forced name magyarization" fantasy by citing names of ministers of Hungary. So if you could be even a minister....than this is nothing more than a joke.--
CumbererStone (
talk)
19:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The topic was about the family names. Now, after you feel that you will lose this surname debate, you changed the topic. Most people get tranlatable chrisian names, because people were religiuos Christians that time. "you might expect half the ministers to have non-Hungarian names" It sound very nazi like for me, like the numerus clausus (racial quotas), where exact ratios were determined by laws. That anti-liberal racial quata policy policy was fell with Adolf Hitler and his followers in 1945.-- CumbererStone ( talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hungarians were 53% in Hungary proper, not less then Slovaks in Upper Hungary or The Romanians in Transylvania in the era of Trianon.--
CumbererStone (
talk)
07:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Slovakia was invented and created only in 1918. It would be anachronistic and weird to call it Slovakia in the era of Austro-Hungarian times.--
CumbererStone (
talk)
14:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Slovak is one of the youngest ethnonym in Europe, the "Slovak" term was born only in the 15th century, in the early modern period. Without own ethnonym, we can't even speak about identity or ethnicity. Slovaks were early modern period mixture of immigrants: Czech Hussites from the N-west, Polish immigrants from the north, Local Hungarians, nomadic Vlach settlers in Eastern Slovakia, Rusyn people in the east, and some German settlers. This modern mixture had a clear impact on various Slovak "dialects". In the reality this were not dialects but rather different languages. This mixature is mirrored in their many old languages Until the birth of the unified "Central Slovak" language in the 19th century, some of the Slovak dialects were closer to Czech language, others were closer to Polish language another dialects were closer to the Rusyn language. So Slovaks did not have even a common mutually intelligible language (which is a corner point of a real nation or an ethnic group) until the Slovak linguistic reforms of the 19th century. You can read about it here:
https://www.101languages.net/slovak/dialects.html?fbclid=IwAR19gTNaoArw_vhLG3A5bJoXDZ2UWYC7BgHvInt6S66q2NQxnKIJOuaRrzo The common unified mutually intelligible Slovak language was spread by the Czechoslovak school system during the interwar period and the communist era, which remained the central policy and goal of the Czechoslovak governments. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CumbererStone (
talk •
contribs)
14:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The table which provides data on the ratio of franchise and ratio of nationalities has one set of data and the text part is using different numbers, which doesnt make much sense. The numbers should be the same in that part or an explanation should be provided for the difference. The table has a source document while the text part has one source but based on the citation the numbers might not have come from there. My suggestion would be to use the data from the table, which would then make some of the comments in the text inaccurate. The other source I have no access to, but if there are different figures from another source than both should be mentioned rather than one that says some nationalities were underrepresented. For example even with the current text 10.4 to 10.7 with the Slovaks is not a statistically significant difference, and if we take a look at the table that provides data that they were actually overrepresented. Underrepresentation than comes into account mostly with the Romanian ethnic group. Also for Hungarians an overrepresentation of 56.2 to the 54.4 is not a huge difference but the text then uses 54.5 and 60.2 which would be a significant overrepresantion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.157.90.161 ( talk) 19:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The topic has no sense regarding to Magyarization, because the suffrage right was not based on ethnicity, but on wealth and later suffrage was based on taxes. --
Longsars (
talk)
08:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
List of Magyarized geographical names was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 October 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Magyarization. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I have removed the quote from the lead which stated that "More than 1.5 million economic migrants moved to the United States from Kingdom of Hungary between the 1900-1914 period. This mass migration also had huge effect on the ratios of ethnic minorities in Kingdom of Hungary, because more than 2/3 part of these immigrants in the USA belonged to the ethnic minorities". The main reason of my removal was that it looked very much like original research, as the cited source (Anna Mazurkiewicz: East Central Europe in Exile Volume 1: Transatlantic Migrations, Publisher: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014, Pages: 141-142) only talks about the minorities among the migrants to US, but it does not talk about its "huge effect on the ratios of ethnic minorities in the Kingdom of Hungary". If someone thinks that the book does talk about the "huge effect" of migration to the US on the ratio of ethic minorities of the Kingdom of Hungary, please, provide the exact quote here. Thank you, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 00:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Because name changing was always a result of personal decision, and it was not directed by state or laws/decrees. The better usage would be: X Y people changed their names, which express that it was their own personal decision.-- CumbererStone ( talk) 19:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
-zation -ation -sation etc... Latin inflections usually refer to a forced process, since there were no such law decree order etc... it happened with personal decisions. Therefore it sounds a weird and incorrect term for name changes.-- CumbererStone ( talk) 12:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
There were not many Hungarian schools in the villages where minorities represented the majority. It happened only in cities, which had traditionally Hungarian and German majority. Remember the fall of the famous Lex Apponyi law, the teachers of the ethnic minority village schools could not speak Hungarian, thus the teachers could not teach the Hungarian language for the minority children. The number of Slovak/Romanian speaking villages increased during the great (imagined) oppression in the 1867-1910 period. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CumbererStone (
talk •
contribs)
15:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Ministers with Foreign names 1867 – 1944
dr. Pauler Tivadar Szlávy József dr. Trefort Ágoston Wlassics Gyula Berzeviczy Albert Jankovich Béla Haller István
Klebelsberg Kuno Hóman Bálint Rajniss Ferenc
Aulich Lajos
Wekerle Sándor
Linder Béla Schnetzer Ferenc Friedrich István Sréter István Belitska Sándor Rőder Vilmos
Vukovics Sebő Pauler Tivadar Perczel Béla Fabiny Teofil Plósz Sándor Gegus Gusztáv Günther Antal Wekerle Sándor Grecsák Károly
Ferdinandy Gyula Vladár Gábor Valentiny Ágoston Ries István
Wenckheim Béla Rajner Pál Hieronymi Károly Ugron Gábor Wekerle Sándor
Samassa Adolf Beniczky Ödön Semadam Sándor Ferdinandy Gyula Klebelsberg Kuno Rakovszky Iván Scitovszky Béla Keresztes-Fischer Ferenc Jaross Andor Schell Péter
Duschek Ferenc Szlávy József Teleszky János Wekerle Sándor Gratz Gusztáv
Miákits Ferenc Peidl Gyula Grünn János Walko Lajos Bud János Reményi-Schneller Lajos Gordon Ferenc
Somssich József Gratz Gusztáv Wenckheim Béla Scitovszky Tibor Walko Lajos Roszner Ervin
Klauzál Gábor Gorove István Trefort Ágoston Feilitzsch Artúr Nyisztor György Vántus Károly Rubinek Gyula Mayer János Schandl Károly Marschall Ferenc Sztranyavszky Sándor Jurcsek Béla
Horánszky Nándor Láng Lajos Hieronymi Károly Friedrich István Heinrich Ferenc Rubinek Gyula Herrmann Miksa Bud János -- CumbererStone ( talk) 08:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
In July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted the world's first laws on ethnic and minority rights. It gave minorities the freedom to use their mothertongue at local administration, at tribunals, in schools, in community life and even within the national guard of non-Magyar councils. However these laws were overturned after the united Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. After the Kingdom of Hungary reached the Compromise with the Habsburg Dynasty in 1867, one of the first acts of its restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868).
The situation of minorities in Hungary were muchmore better than in contemporary pre WW1 Europe. Other highly multiethnic /multinational countries were: France Russia and UK.
See the multi-national UK:
The situation of Scottish Irish and Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language,only English language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. The contemporary Irish question and tensions are well documented. In Wales Welsh children were beaten by their teachers if they spoke Welsh among each others. This was the infamous “Welsh Not” policy... The situation of Ireland was even a more brutal story. It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England.
See the multiethnic France:
In the era of the Great French revolution, only 25% of the population of Kingdom of France could speak the French language as mothertongue. In 1870, France was still similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to Spanish languages or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools, minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public administration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period!!!
The situation in German Empire was well known (Polish territories and Sorbs)
Just see the high contrast between Kingdom of Hungary and contemporary pre WW1-era Europe:
Magyarization was not so harsh as the contemporary western European situation, because the minorities were defended by minority rights and laws. Contemporary Western European legal systems did not know the minority rights, therefore they loudly and proudly covered up their minorities. 1.Were there state sponsored minority schools in Western European countries? NO. 2. How many official languages existed in Western-European states? Only 1 official language! 3. Could minorities use their languages in the offices of public administration in self-governments , in tribunals in Western Europe? No, they couldn't. 4. Did the minorities have own fractions and political parties in the western European parliaments ? No, no they hadn't. 5. What about newspapers of ethnic minorities in Western Europe? They did not exist in the West.... We can continue these things to the infinity.--
CumbererStone (
talk)
16:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I already gave a chess mat for the propnents of the "forced name magyarization" fantasy by citing names of ministers of Hungary. So if you could be even a minister....than this is nothing more than a joke.--
CumbererStone (
talk)
19:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
The topic was about the family names. Now, after you feel that you will lose this surname debate, you changed the topic. Most people get tranlatable chrisian names, because people were religiuos Christians that time. "you might expect half the ministers to have non-Hungarian names" It sound very nazi like for me, like the numerus clausus (racial quotas), where exact ratios were determined by laws. That anti-liberal racial quata policy policy was fell with Adolf Hitler and his followers in 1945.-- CumbererStone ( talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hungarians were 53% in Hungary proper, not less then Slovaks in Upper Hungary or The Romanians in Transylvania in the era of Trianon.--
CumbererStone (
talk)
07:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Slovakia was invented and created only in 1918. It would be anachronistic and weird to call it Slovakia in the era of Austro-Hungarian times.--
CumbererStone (
talk)
14:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Slovak is one of the youngest ethnonym in Europe, the "Slovak" term was born only in the 15th century, in the early modern period. Without own ethnonym, we can't even speak about identity or ethnicity. Slovaks were early modern period mixture of immigrants: Czech Hussites from the N-west, Polish immigrants from the north, Local Hungarians, nomadic Vlach settlers in Eastern Slovakia, Rusyn people in the east, and some German settlers. This modern mixture had a clear impact on various Slovak "dialects". In the reality this were not dialects but rather different languages. This mixature is mirrored in their many old languages Until the birth of the unified "Central Slovak" language in the 19th century, some of the Slovak dialects were closer to Czech language, others were closer to Polish language another dialects were closer to the Rusyn language. So Slovaks did not have even a common mutually intelligible language (which is a corner point of a real nation or an ethnic group) until the Slovak linguistic reforms of the 19th century. You can read about it here:
https://www.101languages.net/slovak/dialects.html?fbclid=IwAR19gTNaoArw_vhLG3A5bJoXDZ2UWYC7BgHvInt6S66q2NQxnKIJOuaRrzo The common unified mutually intelligible Slovak language was spread by the Czechoslovak school system during the interwar period and the communist era, which remained the central policy and goal of the Czechoslovak governments. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CumbererStone (
talk •
contribs)
14:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The table which provides data on the ratio of franchise and ratio of nationalities has one set of data and the text part is using different numbers, which doesnt make much sense. The numbers should be the same in that part or an explanation should be provided for the difference. The table has a source document while the text part has one source but based on the citation the numbers might not have come from there. My suggestion would be to use the data from the table, which would then make some of the comments in the text inaccurate. The other source I have no access to, but if there are different figures from another source than both should be mentioned rather than one that says some nationalities were underrepresented. For example even with the current text 10.4 to 10.7 with the Slovaks is not a statistically significant difference, and if we take a look at the table that provides data that they were actually overrepresented. Underrepresentation than comes into account mostly with the Romanian ethnic group. Also for Hungarians an overrepresentation of 56.2 to the 54.4 is not a huge difference but the text then uses 54.5 and 60.2 which would be a significant overrepresantion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.157.90.161 ( talk) 19:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The topic has no sense regarding to Magyarization, because the suffrage right was not based on ethnicity, but on wealth and later suffrage was based on taxes. --
Longsars (
talk)
08:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)