This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
There are 20 millions magyars worldwide.-- Székhu 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
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]
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. K issL 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)
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)
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)
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)
It killed up to 500 people.
-- Florentino floro 04:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Is the country called Hungaria or Hungary? Why would it called Hungary if all the other countries are called "ia" like Bulgaria, Nigeria, etc.?
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.
This user is incapable of understanding that this article is huge enough. -- Phone1010 11:19, 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. K issL 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.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian Americans. Badagnani 18:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
someone forgot to add this page to main entry for Hungary -- Mrg3105 08:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
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 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.) K issL 10:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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.
I don't see them mentioning any sources... Squash Racket ( talk) 16:50, 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)
- 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)
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)
. Squash Racket ( talk) 06:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views
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)
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!
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:
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
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.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.
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)
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.
I've seen the
> 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)
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
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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. Balkan Fever 08:11, 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 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)
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 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
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)
The article is too long by any standards. The history section should be considerably shorter. Squash Racket ( talk) 10:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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
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)
This article can in no way be listed as a GA.
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)
Let's do it this way. Squash Racket ( talk) 07:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the excel article! Ronasdudor ( talk) 10:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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'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)
(...)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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?title=User_talk:Tobby72&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.144 ( talk) 15:32, 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.
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)
Why was the pronunciation changed from [mɒɟɒrorsaːɡ] to [mɔɟɔrorsaːg]? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hungary&diff=305663734&oldid=305202284 Yuhani ( talk) 23:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
→ 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)
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)
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)
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)
Ok then why not include that in the article. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ltmssbb (
talk •
contribs) 23:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
“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)
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)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stears159 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- "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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Read it again! It speaks about ancient bones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.1.182 ( talk) 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
This article is awfully long, I think parts of the history should be taken out.-- Levineps ( talk) 18:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
Answer for Krisztian of Slovakia: No IQ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 ( talk • contribs) 08:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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?)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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).
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
I replaced this statement to page of Demographics of Hungary: There was an enforced Magyarization in Communist Hungary. [2] Fakirbakir ( talk) 03:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
| |
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) |
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)
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)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Official names of Hungary:
-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)
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)
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)
"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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
50.100.166.92 (
talk) 06:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 ==
This article is heavily overlinked. WP:OVERLINK provides some guidelines. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 02:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
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
Incidentally, Erdos never emigrated to the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.72.23 ( talk) 14:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
"(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)
"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 [3] of Hungarian Jewish descent, so he rasied as catholic, and John Harsanyi born as Catholic, [4] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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¶m=5148 3. 1844. évi II. tc - Hungarian is the only official language http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3¶m=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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
There are 20 millions magyars worldwide.-- Székhu 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
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]
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. K issL 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)
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)
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)
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)
It killed up to 500 people.
-- Florentino floro 04:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Is the country called Hungaria or Hungary? Why would it called Hungary if all the other countries are called "ia" like Bulgaria, Nigeria, etc.?
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.
This user is incapable of understanding that this article is huge enough. -- Phone1010 11:19, 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. K issL 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.
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian Americans. Badagnani 18:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
someone forgot to add this page to main entry for Hungary -- Mrg3105 08:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
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 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.) K issL 10:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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.
I don't see them mentioning any sources... Squash Racket ( talk) 16:50, 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)
- 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)
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)
. Squash Racket ( talk) 06:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views
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)
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!
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:
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)
"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)
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
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.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.
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)
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.
I've seen the
> 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)
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
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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. Balkan Fever 08:11, 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 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)
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 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
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)
The article is too long by any standards. The history section should be considerably shorter. Squash Racket ( talk) 10:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
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)
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
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)
This article can in no way be listed as a GA.
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)
Let's do it this way. Squash Racket ( talk) 07:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the excel article! Ronasdudor ( talk) 10:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
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)
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'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)
(...)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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/?title=User_talk:Tobby72&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.144 ( talk) 15:32, 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.
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)
Why was the pronunciation changed from [mɒɟɒrorsaːɡ] to [mɔɟɔrorsaːg]? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hungary&diff=305663734&oldid=305202284 Yuhani ( talk) 23:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
→ 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)
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)
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)
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)
Ok then why not include that in the article. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ltmssbb (
talk •
contribs) 23:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
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)
“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)
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)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stears159 ( talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- "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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
Read it again! It speaks about ancient bones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.1.182 ( talk) 20:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
This article is awfully long, I think parts of the history should be taken out.-- Levineps ( talk) 18:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
Answer for Krisztian of Slovakia: No IQ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 ( talk • contribs) 08:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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?)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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).
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
I replaced this statement to page of Demographics of Hungary: There was an enforced Magyarization in Communist Hungary. [2] Fakirbakir ( talk) 03:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
| |
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) |
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)
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)
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
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.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 16:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Official names of Hungary:
-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)
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)
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)
"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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
50.100.166.92 (
talk) 06:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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 ==
This article is heavily overlinked. WP:OVERLINK provides some guidelines. Zyxwv99 ( talk) 02:34, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
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
Incidentally, Erdos never emigrated to the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.72.23 ( talk) 14:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
"(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)
"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 [3] of Hungarian Jewish descent, so he rasied as catholic, and John Harsanyi born as Catholic, [4] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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¶m=5148 3. 1844. évi II. tc - Hungarian is the only official language http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3¶m=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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)