Talk:History of Hungary/Archive 1

Mongol invasion

This page is missing discussion of the Mongol invasion. Dominus 07:09, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Its missing 500 years completely. I think it was written by someone with a leaning towards modern history. I'll try to flesh out the medieval stuff a bit

Actually, it was written by several people. The original is from me, but that's only the first and the last three paragraphs of part 2, basically the very short introduction on older history and the part about interbellum and WW2. The history of communist and post-communist Hungary was added by someone else, but the archives do not tell us who. Andre Engels 14:22, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I tried to jump at it but realised that the ancient and medieval history would need a huge rewrite and digging several sources. It could probably utilise http://www.magyarorszag.hu/angol/orszaginfo/tortenelem/kronologia_a.html as a vague cronology and http://www.magyarorszag.hu/angol/orszaginfo/tortenelem/tortenelem as a not very detailed history. --grin 16:28, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)

It definitely needs a lot of work when it comes to the Middle Ages. Although, one could write up a dozen paragraphs just by going around Wikipedia and collecting references about the arrival of Magyars and the expansion of the Hungarian kingdom :) --Shallot 13:16, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"removed disputed sentence"

Dear Anon,

EMBEREK VALKI EGY ÓVODAI hamis TÉRKÉPET TETT BE 998-as történelmi térképként sajnos elég régóta van ott már ("hungary in light blue"), megjelölve számos akkor nem létező országot is létezőként / és egységes államként. Ezen államok méretei pedig nagyon meglepőek a X században ha megnézed a hiteles profi térképeket.

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)

No matter how hard I look I don't see that "dispute" here which you based your delete on. Would you please elaborate? Thanks. --grin ✎ 10:23, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

I thought that that clause was a bit unclear. Why would Czech officers promote German language and culture, what kind of Czech officers were they? Could you elaborate it a bit, please? --Shallot 12:42, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I can't because I am not a historian. But it was you who deleted it referring to some dispute, so I guess you did your research. About "why would" question: neighbours in war (enemy) situations usually support suppression of the other's people, language, government. It was about supporting suppression of Hungarians' independence and not about promoting german culture, I guess. --grin ✎ 10:35, 2004 May 20 (UTC)

Oh, it wasn't me who deleted it. I left it in, but commented out the previous "(!)" that immediately followed it the clause. I guess that makes sense, the army officers seemed to be pawns during those revolutions, cf. the later war. --Shallot 10:54, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Stalin's reasons

"Stalin was the primary opponent of keeping some mainly Magyar-populated territories of Romania and Slovakia within Hungary." Assuming the truth of quoted assertion, which were Stalin's opposition reasons? --Vasile 02:14, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it looks as if some hungarian writer threw that in to make it LOOK as if Stalin was the main one who decided to include these lands within Romania's borders. Of course, the intent behind this sentence: to make it appear that it was an arbitrary decision tracing from Stalin, & that these lands somehow should have stayed hungarian. Yeah right. Quit your whining. There's a lot more to it than that, & Romania has a lot more right to those lands than you want to beleive. (Decius)

The sad truth is, neither POVs are right. Hungary's and Romania's relation to the Soviet Union after the end of war in the European theatre was "friendly" on the surface, since the Soviet Union treated all of his later allies as enemies, which countries helped Nazi Germany. For a short period, before the communist takeover in Eastern Europe, Stalin really played with the idea to punish Romania for reclaiming its lost territory after Word War I ( a fact mainly ignored by Hungarian extremists), the change in fate was due to the fact, that Stalin's plan, slowly swallowing the newly occupied countries into communism was countered by Churchill's, later Eden's and Truman's suspicion toward him, and thereafter the Soviets dropped their idea to turn both parties against each other. On a personal note: let us be honest, both our countries suffered great losses until today, in which I think about the Dniester-region, which is continuingly claims to stay part of a Russian domination, so Decius, just so much to the "who has more rights what" Shinichi1977

Update of middle age, Turkish period and 1848 parts

I re-edited large parts of this article (and some connected ones) over the last few days. I noticed someone else did re-editions in the meantime, with some points that mystify me.

For example, what is the significance of Géza's Western Hungarian basis? Are there sources that dispute his (as opposed to his son Stephen's) overlord-ship over the rest of Hungary?

Géza's territory included Burgenland in the east (with a tiny part of Lower Austria), Transdanubia (down to the Drava River), the territory between the Danube and the Tisza. The rest is described in the Arpads article.

Also, regarding the castles blown up by the Habsburgs after the 1703-1711 uprising, are there sources claiming that not most, just 'some' were blown up? DoDo 25 Nov 2004

There were (and are) hundreds of such "border" castles in Slovakia and I hear for the first time that "almost all of them" were blown up in this connection. Maybe castles in present-day Hungary or in Transylvania were blown up...or you are confusing something... Juro 20:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The latter, apparently :-) I looked up in some books about castles, it turns out the Austrians only ordered the destruction of 16 major fortresses and a number of smaller ones (and such destructions were ordered by the Habsburgs in the decades before already), while the majority was only left in disrepair, and peasants were told they can use stones from them. I modified the text accordingly. (On the other hand, with 'blowing up' I didn't mean total destruction - just rendering them unusable for defense. After all, one of the blown-up castles, Visegrád, is complete enough for German tourists to flock there. Or there is Divín near Lucenec, which received the treatment in 1679, but wall remains still stand high last I visited.)

It's OK now. You see, "thanks" to the Mongol invasion, Slovakia is the country with the highest number of castles per capita/(or km² ?) in the world, so what you were claiming originally would have to be in every book or encyclopaedia, but it is not (although the preceding uprising is treated very extensively everywhere)... Juro 20:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I see the census is another issue - one I request sources for. Until this is cleared up, I inserted a text version that includes both the 29% and 35% figure, while here I reproduce the disputed part, and below it my reasons to dispute it:

A census of 1780 yielded 71% (5.681.660) Non-Magyars and only 2.321.340 (28.9%) Magyars (=ethnic Hungarians) out of a total population of 8.003.000, according to other interpretations of the data the percentage of Magyars was somewhat higher.

To my knowledge, the first census in the Royal Hungary territory of the Habsburg Empire was not conducted in 1780 but 1784. It was organised since 1777, but delayed due to Empress Maria Theresia's death in 1780, and wasn't conducted until the July 16, 1784 order of Habsburg Emperor Joseph II - hence called 'Conscriptio Josephina'. It was conducted with heavy resistance at places (military escorts were needed for example in Nitra), and left out Southern border areas under military government (and soldiers too). It was finished and data was released in 1786 (Transsylvania) and 1787 (Royal Hungary and Croatia). It had no ethnicity, nor language question (true to Joseph's Germanisation intentions). The total is 8,555,832 (the population left out is estimated at 700,000).

I also inspected the numbers presented in the above disputed sentence. On one hand, I found no citing on the web that tells more about its origins (in fact I found only one citing, a translated extract from the 1995 Marko-Martinicky book on Slovakian-Hungarian relations). On the other hand, while the total is almost exactly 8 million, the Magyar/non-Magyar sub-sums differ only 0.006% from 71% resp. 29% [not 28.9% - that must be a typo, shared with the Marko-Martinicky extract I found] - this is too much coincidence. I suspect the explanation is: there was an estimate of an 8 million population total and a 29% ethnic-Hungarian percentage, and errors in subsequent calculations and re-calculations by citators (typos, roundings) gave these numbers. DoDo 20:38, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I extracted the numbers from various books when writing an article on the ethnic development of slovakia for the German wikipedia, I am afraid I do not know now anymore from which book this particular number for 1780 comes (it is however not from the internet and I am using "serious" texts only). The word "census" used by me might have been a bad choice, because indeed the first real censuses only took place in 1784-1785, 1786 and 1787, but Hungarian nobles were so "kind" to destroy most of the material in 1790. But in general if you look at the trend, the 30% should be a correct estimate - maybe that's how the collegues arrived at the number in the first place (in combination with a "backward extrapolation" of data from the later censuses and using the saved data from the Josephine censuses). But since I am sure that one will find different numbers in various sources (especially higher ones in Hungarian sources and lower ones in other sources) the current version is completely OK, otherwise we could discuss this topic for centuries. For example, now I have a source which says that the result of the 1785 census was a population of 6467829 for Hungary incl. Transylvania (if the difference is not Croatia, then the difference between 6.5 mio and 8 or 8.5 mio is quite striking)...Juro 20:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

OK, no changes, but as for me this is not a question of patriotism but pure curiosity (after all, I myself have more German, Polish, Czech, Slovakian and Serbian ancestors than Hungarian), if you find the reference I'd be still interested :-)

As for 6,467,829, my source gives the same number, but for just Royal Hungary, while it gives 647,017 for Croatia, and 1,440,986 for Transsylvania. This source also also attempted a breakdown for pre-1990 borders (leaving out localities cut in half by borders):

• Hungary 2,681,595
• Chechoslovakia 1,926,703
• Poland 21,582
• Austria 182,963
• Yugoslavia 1,016,166
• Romania 2,489,530
• USSR 206,941
• (Sum of these 8,525,480)

You speculated that the 29% is a (linear?) projection backwards, but I am not sure that works - I suspect the percentual increase of Hungarians from 38% to 51% in the Monarchy-era censuses is due to assimilation, but institutional repression of non-Hungarian culture in favor of Hungarian started in earnest only from 1867 (tough it existed before, e.g. laws of 1843).

I am a bit surprised about the noblemen's destroying most Josephine records, to my knowledge they are in archives still today. On the other hand, I was curious why there were rebellions against the census, and in the meantime found texts that explain: commoners realised that Joseph II wanted to know how many soldiers he could conscript and where, while the f**king noblemen knew that a census writing up everyone's belongings is setting the basis for their taxation. After Joseph's death, they succeeded to get exemption in further censuses, a privilege they kept until the 1850 one - maybe this is what your source interpreted as destruction? DoDo 22:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh no, this is a quite clear case. The Josephine censuses were very modern and very reliable censuses (as opposed to all the later censuses organized by the Hungarian state until 1850 and then maybe after 1880). They have been, however, primarily performed for military purposes. After Joseph's death [who - as you probably know - had tried to push the still medieval and backwarded Hungarian kingdom some "100 years to the future" through his extensive reforms, which however he was forced to revoke on the part of the nobles] the nobles of the counties (comitatuses) wanted to destroy all the census documentation. They only managed to destroy the actual (and most important) census archs of each family (e.g. in Slovakia only archs from three towns have been preserved) and a part of the county-level summaries. The countrywide-level summaries have been preserved (in Budapest), I do not know to what extent they contain numbers on ethnicity. So, the above breakdown should be more or less correct.

And as for the "extrapolation", I did not mean a "linear" extrapolation, of course, and secondly what I am talking here about are always the official Hungarian numbers - if we had to take into account assimilation and other pressures and deformations in the definition of "nation(ality)", the whole issue would get much more complicated (although still interesting :) ) ...Juro 23:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kadar

The section on the 1956 revolution describes Janos Kadar, first, as a supporter of Imre Nagy and then as a Soviet loyalist who replaced him. Is this correct?

It's not impossible, but I think it isn't. This article needs radical rewriting, it's not impossible it has been written by a kadarist or to be joke. As I know, Kadar was not the member of Imre Nagy second government. Gubbubu 19:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is true. Kádár was a member of the Nágy Governement and also first-secretary of the reformed Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party. On November 2 he disapered from Budapest and on November 4 he reapered and anounced via a Soviet Army radio station the formation of the Revolutionary Peasant-Worker Governement.

i have a problem with that

• After the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the countries of Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, supported by the USA and the Entente Powers, made claims on the historical lands of the Hungarian Monarchy. All three countries sent armies into Hungary. Despite its appeals to the Entente, the Karolyi government could not resist the armies of its neighbors and large parts of Hungary were occupied.

at least Romania made claims on Transylvania since the beginning of the war, so its not like "the cowards rushed to strip a wonded man of its belongings" but "the empire crumbled like anything going against natural evolution of things in life". Since 1918 Transyvlania proclaimed union with ROmania, so it separated from Hungary. things have to be put in order here. and i fail to see the meaning of "historical lands" -- Criztu 12:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Romania was attacked by Bolshevik Hungary. So its not like "barbarian invaders were halted" but "hungarian bolsheviks started a war they were incapable of waging it". put this info in order -- Criztu 12:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Just to make sure: 1. Romania attacked Hungary in the WW1, but the Monarchy managed to pull back the romanians and forced them to sign the peace (which means that Romania resigned of the right to any territory that was promised them for the case of winning the war!) 2. Noone proclaimed the union with Romania...how can anyone believe in that? Were they insane? No, that just the romanian propaganda which is very much needed to ensure their power in the stolen part of Hungary. 3. The bolshevik Hungary attacked Romania?? hmm.. And where did they just cross the romanian border? If you can answer me that, I will give you one million dollars, I promise. Just look at the historic maps. The romanian troops were at Szolnok(the middle of Hungary) when tha hungarian red army started a counterattack...(and that also just because the romanian army did not keep their word to leave Tiszantul) 4. The numbers: Hungarian army did not exist after the end of WW1. The only resistance was made by the red army (during the summer 1919)which was assembled from factory workers. The number of enemy divisions was: CZE-SVK-GBR - 7.5, ROM - 7, YUG-FRA - 5, UKR free troops - 2 Hungary had 5 (mostly non-militaty)units in summary, so the resistance was without any hope.

I left that part alone for the moment until I find a better wording; "historical lands" is not good, I agree. The fact that needs to be conveyed is that large parts of the former Kingdom of Hungary had been occupied by Romanian, Czechoslovak and Yugoslav armies by the end of 1918. What you added about Transylvania is pretty much out of context there. See also my comment here; in brief, to consider Transylvania a part of Romania already in 1919 is not NPOV. KissL 11:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

pffff, since october 1918 there was no more Kingdom of Hungary, a Hungarian republic was proclaimed. since november 1918 representatives of ROmanians in Transylvania notified Budapest they assumed control of Transylvania. In December 1918 ROmanian army entered Transylvania under mandate of the Power of Versailles on grounds of securing the area (no Hungarian army left to mentaing order i guess) and protectingthe romanians from Transylvania. So take good care on "Romanian army occupied parts of former Kingdom of Hungary", likewise i could state "Romanian army occupied parts of former Roman Empire" :| -- Criztu 20:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• Was any change to the borders also proclaimed together with the Republic? I doubt it.
• "Powers of Versailles" = "Powers at war with Hungary". What the hell is justified by their mandate? It remains an act of war, the same as without their mandate.
• In 1919, "former Kingdom of Hungary" ~ "former Roman Empire": false analogy.

KissL 09:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

If tomorrow Romanian republic desintegrates and Monarchy is proclaimed, and Transylvania proclaims independence from RO and notices the gov of RO of its separation from RO and union with Hungary, and asks protection from HU and HU enters Transylvania, and a consequent Treaty recognizes HU's sovereignty over Transylvania, then Hungary didnt "occupy lands of former republic of Romania" , but "Hungary legitimately protected its territory, Transylvnia" -- Criztu 09:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Until the treaty is signed, Transylvania would not be Hungary's territory in such a case. You are also completely overlooking the fact that the Romanian army, when "attacked", was already stationed in territories that were not recognised Romanian sovereign by the subsequent treaty. KissL 10:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

i read the following: Hungarian offensive in Transylvania begun on 15/16 april 1919. Romanian counteroffensive reached Tisza on 1st of may 1919. On 20 july hungarian offensive trying to break the romanian lines on Tisa. 25 july romanian counterofensive reaches Budapest 4 august. -- Criztu 12:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I never heard of any Hungarian offensive 15/16 April 1919, I'm waiting for your sources. But if there was one, it couldn't be in Transylvania, because the Romanian army already held a position west of Transylvania on 20 March, when there was no Soviet Hungary yet. KissL 13:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

About Transylvania being Romanian or Hungarian, you probably know that if tommorow Transylvania declares independence under the name "Kingdom of Romania" its status has to be recognised by the other countries. Did any country recognised Transylvania as part of the newly proclaimed Hungary in 1919, or did any country recognised Transylvania as part of the Kingdom of Hungary since WW I begun in 1916 ? from my knowledge, the Entente recognised sovereignty of Romania over Transylvania since 1916, when RO entered the war. and since present-day Treaties state that Transylvania is RO sovereign, it is waste of time debating wether "ROmania occupied teritory of former Kingdom of Hungary on december 1918" is apropriate, or "Romania protected Transylvania which proclaimed union with RO since 1 december 1918" is apropriate. -- Criztu 12:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Before 1916, every country recognised Transylvania as being part of Austria-Hungary. Later, countries who formed an alliance with Romania recognised Romania's "interests" in Transylvania (not Transylvania being Romanian sovereign). By proclaiming the independence of Hungary from Austria, and the replacement of the Kingdom by a Republic, the borders of the old Kingdom did naturally not change (everyone knew what had been the Austria part and what had been the Hungary part). Whoever did not recognise the new Republic simply disregarded the proclamation of independence and acted as if Austria-Hungary still existed as a whole, in which case Transylvania would be the part of Austria-Hungary in their official opinions. Nothing before the Treaty of Trianon provides a legal basis for calling Transylvania a part of Romania: the Entente consent is not a basis because they were Romania's war allies; the Alba Iulia proclamation is not a basis because it wasn't representative, either legally or in terms of demographics, of Transylvania as a whole, and even if it were, the Romanian army stationed there would have had ample opportunity to influence the proclamation. KissL 13:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I tell you this: If any sentence in this article implying "ROmania occupied Transylvania" or "Romania attacked Hungary" or "Romania invaded, ocupied, pillaged Hungary" is not supported by primary sources (Treaties, Declarations of the Parliaments) and explicit info on which country did what, i will object to it -- Criztu 20:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What I gave you on other talkpages (but just for the record, here you go again: the diary of General Bandholtz in pdf and in html) is as much of a primary source as any treaty or declaration. In fact, it is more so, because the purpose of a Treaty is to fix the borders and to punish the loser sides in the war it ends (which makes it openly biased towards the winners), whereas the American General Bandholtz has never been shown (nor even alleged, to my knowledge) to have been prejudiced against Romanians, or in favour of Hungarians, before he saw what the Romanian army did in Hungary. KissL 09:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with you that this is all a waste of time, if only you wouldn't use this twisted interpretation of things to support the ridiculous claims "Hungary attacked Romania" and "Hungary was the agressor of Romania". KissL 13:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

well, the Treaties in power right now considered Hungary the aggressor state in the war with Romania, while the article keeps complete silence on any attack of HU against RO, and speaks only of "ROmania attacked, occupied, pillaged, invaded Hungary" ... if this isnt blatant antiromanian propaganda on Wikipedia in a Hungarian related article, then i must be extremely sensitive -- Criztu 20:24, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

See my comment above on treaties. Without the slightest intention to hurt you, I think you are both overly sensitive, and unwilling to be convinced by facts, in this case. KissL 09:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I also have a few problems, actually they are more inconsistencies. First of all, I find it a "bit" unenciclopedical to state sentences like "the empire crumbled like anything going against natural evolution of things in life", since it could be interpreted, that Austria-Hungary was an unnatural state, which had to be crushed. Let us be honest, the Entente forces did not waged a war for their allies and their territorial claims, otherwise there wouldn't be an article like Western betrayal portraying happenings between the two world wars. Second, the legal title of Béla Kun's state was the Hungarian Soviet Republic, in Hungarian known as Tanácsköztársaság, which proclaimed allience with the Soviet Union, the Bavarian Soviet Republic, but it was not bolshevik, since the very term means majority and does not refer to ideology, but to the fact, that at the time, the Communists in Russia felt to backed by the society, becoming Bolsheviks, and the White Russians the Mensheviks. The reason, this has to be cleared is: Béla Kun and his communists did not earned the majority of the society, they were dictators. An other reason is, that the army was not under Communist control: after the armistice, the army had lost faith in the imperial (kuk) leadership, on the other hand, many of them were nationalistic, others just feared the safety of their relatives, and were willing to fight. The "common belief", the attack was vital to establish a direct connection to Soviet Russia was only a Communist dream, the army itself was under the control of the Spcialdemocrats. However, it is also true, but please never forget to observe facts in their context, at that time the Soviet Union was governed by Lenin and not Stalin, and many idealists believed the Soviet Union will become a dream state. The point for stating that is, it is not historical to judge something from its later deeds. Yet again, the statement, there was no kingdom of Hungary is incorrect. If it's possible, let us agree on the term, that the relations in the Carpathian Basin between 1918 and 1921, the codifications of the peace treaties, were extremely chaotic. That's been the said, the veracity of Károlyi's republic had so much legitimity like Kossuth's proclamation about the dethronization of the Habsburgs. Again, the reason for the comparison is the fact, that Charles I has not resigned his title for the King of Hungary, and since the Entente powers did not recognized either Károlyi's or Kun's administration, the kingdom stayed a kindom, in fact Hungary was a kingdom until the new republic was legislated in 1946 (just to be replaced by a communist regime 3 years later). As 1918, the newly founded countries has occupied territories, which were promised to them upon signing their original treaties to enter the conflict. I don't say, it was unrightful, nevertheless don't forget the peace treaty of Sévres and Italy's reason for entering the Second World War on the Axis side as good examples, or the situation around Sopron in 1921, after the Treaty of Trianon, but before its Hungarian codification, in any of the conflicts borders have been changed because of use of excessive force by one party (or Romania situation with Bulgaria and the Soviet Union). And here's the part where probably both of you will love to hate me, because both statements are wrong. After the Treaty of Vienna ( 23 of June 1606) Transylvania gained independence from the Austrian Empire, and it lasted even after the Kingdom of Hungary has formally integrated the territory to its own, otherwise I would be interested to hear, why the famous 12 points claimed a union with the territory... Whereas the other statement is also a POV. "Powers of Versailles" and even the Treaty of Versailles came to power only after the codification of these treaties in every country, which did not happened in Hungary until 1921. Again, this does not say, it was unrightful, only that it came into power only after it was legitimized (for example, many Romanian nationalists are claiming, that Dobrudja, and Moldavia are parts of "Romanian hisatorical lands" ignoring the fact, that the majority of these societies are more Russian-oriented, than Romanian. If you happen to find similarities with Hungarian lunatics with similar claims, its not a pure coincidence). About the last statement: I hope we can agree at least on that point, that "aggressors" "attacked" for "territorial claims" is intself a propaganda. Here and now in the Carpathian Basin would be hard to find anyone who has not had at least one relative who lost his life upon an order, whereas on the other hand the people who summoned these soldiers either to protect or to reclaim were mostly the same ones, who send them into World War I at the first place. We should commemorate these people on every side, and should take a less sensitive stance since 85 years has passed by... Shinichi1977

I agree with you in most of your remarks. Gubbubu 07:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Names in various languages

As a rule, I put the Hungarian names of cities first, and then their current name in parentheses. I suppose this is acceptable in the History of Hungary article, but I'm OK the other way round as well. However, I think we should either prefer the then-current official names of cities (Pressburg/Pozsony, Kaschau/Kassa, Klausenburg/Kolozsvár etc.), or the now-current official names (Bratislava, Košice, Cluj-Napoca etc.) The current state of affairs is a mixture of the two... KissL 12:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

(1) "Your" rule (i.e. using Hungarian names first and then the rest) applies to cities in present-day Hungary only. That is a basic rule in the English wikipedia. You should have found that out already. (2) The then official name was the Latin name, not the Hungarian or any other name (this is approx. the "1000" time I am repeating this in this wikipedia). (2) No one of the above names, except Pressburg, corresponds to the then name (e.g. the form Pozsony appeared around 1800 for the first time). Therefore, actually, it would be correct to mention the actual name only, but since I know that you guys want to have Hungarian names everywhere, it is probably acceptable to add the (modern) Hungarian names in brackets. Bratislava is a special case, because the town was totally renamed (unlike the other towns), therefore I have used Pressburg, the historical English name (I always hesitate in the case of this name, but I think what we have now is the best solution). Juro 19:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, it would be nice to have such rules as you propose, but the current practice differs, regrettably. Often historical official names have precedence over the current official names, especially in articles or sections about history. E.g. see Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Juro, ortography is one thing, the name itself is another. Bratislava was called Pozsony in Hungarian since the 10th century, though it was usually written "Poson" which is the closest Latin ortography of the name, Latin being the language of almost all written communications.

"You guys want to have Hungarian names everywhere" – do you really think you know what I "want" and where? Let me point out meanwhile that we are talking about the article titled "History of Hungary", so having the Hungarian names is maybe not so very inappropriate. "That is a basic rule [...] you should have found that out already" is similarly a pointless personal insult (not the first one, but I choose now not to overlook it), and also incorrect. Is this really necessary? KissL 09:23, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

What you write shows that you have absolutely no idea what I am (for the 1000 time) writing about, although these are basic things. The official language of the Kingdom of Hungary was NOT Hungarian (but Latin) and despite the fact that the kingdom was called Hungary (which is a word identical with present-day Hungary in most languages), Hungarian was neither the official, nor the most frequently used (30% Hungarians according to language in the 18th century and maybe 5 % Hungarians from the 16 to the 17th century) and the historical names used in foreign texts were those of the native language or German in the past, not Hungarian (unless the German name could not be found for some villages and unless, in some cases, it was Magyar territory). Next, the non-Magyar names (especially the Slavic ones) of the towns are older then the Magyar ones, were used parallely and were in no state of "subordination" towards the Magyar names, because - as I already mentioned - Hungarian was not the official language. Next, OF COURSE, there is a difference between the pronounciation of the older names and of the current name - e.g. Poson was pronounced with a -s- (from the Latin Posonium or according to other opinions with an sh and without -ny at the end initially etc.) while Pozsony is with zh - are you trying to deny this?? And, OF COURSE, abdolutely NONE of the Magyar / German/ Slovak names from the 16th century is fully identical with its current form. So, I consider the "argument" that the title "History of Hungary" justifies the use of Hungarian names for territories outside present-day Hungary for the middle ages as a joke (because the word Hungary in the title is in no relation to the language). And finally, I do not see the least insult in the above text, if you see an insult, then that's actually a very bad sign for me...And as for "You guys want.." - that's a neutral statement and it is sufficient to look at most of the recent discussions concerning the use of Hungarian names in Romania or even (past) attempts to move present-day Slovak towns under a Hungarian article title, rename all Slovak names in articles into Hungarian ones etc. to make such a sentence 10 times justified - and I have seen no Hungarian contributor here that would try to do the opposite (and note that I am much longer here than you)... Juro 15:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

• There was, for a long time, no such thing as an "official language". High-ranking people had been using Latin for centuries without ever thinking twice. Therefore, I never said Hungarian was the official language, though I did, kind of incorrectly, talk about "official names" instead of "current names" or "names used". KissL 15:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Latin was the official language in any sense of the word - used for official documents, at higher schools and courts, in the parliament (it was virtually forbidden to speak Hungarian there before the early 19th century ) etc. - this is unlike in Germany or England, for example, over most of the centuries; you can call it another name, but it remains what we call the official language today. Also, Latin was replaced by German in 1790-1795 and 1848 - 185XY, and by Hungarian by several laws in the 1840s - obviously, the use of Latin was even so official that it had to be officially replaced. Juro 16:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• "Historical names used in foreign texts were those of the native language or German in the past, not Hungarian" – the "native language" of who? Most larger cities in the Kingdom were ethnically heterogeneous throughout the ages while the Kingdom existed, and the specific cities in question did have Hungarian population (among others of course). For similar reasons, it makes no sense to talk about "Magyar territory", even today, but particularly at the times of the Kingdom. KissL 15:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Native language of the predominant population or of the text (chronicle) writer, of course. Of course, there was a certain predominant population in most of the towns at particular centuries (it was only in the end of the 19th century that the situation changed, but still there were predominant nationalities in most parts of the kingdom, of course), the number of big towns was not so high in the Kingdom, and do not forget that most of the settlements were no towns (in other words, there was obviously a lot of land outside the few big towns) - this should be self-evident. And, of course, it makes great sense to talk about Magyar territory (as oppposed to the ambiguous "Hungarian territory"), because the expression is supposed to mean "territory inhabited (clearly) predominantly by Magyars" - which, at that time, was appr. present-day Hungary and the Magyar islands in Romania. And I do not understand even more why it should make no sense or even be somehow prohibited to talk about Magyar territory in this sense (I cannot think of another sense) nowadays. (If this was an article, I would use more precise formulations of course, but this is just a talk page ...) Juro 16:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I like the "chronicle writer" interpretation, but unless we want to get into endless edit wars with each other as well as others about virtually every single locality in the KoH, I'd avoid the very expression "predominant population". Any account on who was predominant somewhere is inherently biased towards the ethnicity of the chronicler (simply due to, for an overwhelming part, lack of precise measurement methods rather than intentional bias – talking of course the times before romantic nationalism). So your sources and my sources are bound to clash a zillion times over about "predominant population", and of course we won't find a single unbiased source, because if someone was neutral about all the ethnicities in a locality, they just didn't go there or write a word about it. KissL 16:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This was just a response to your question as to what I mean. I did not say that I am going to use such formulations in articles...Juro 14:01, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• "the non-Magyar names (especially the Slavic ones) of the towns are older then the Magyar ones, were used parallely and were in no state of "subordination" towards the Magyar names" – did I say otherwise? KissL 15:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understood your edits and comment in the way that Hungarian was the official language, therefore the names have to be in Hungarian, and the remaining names are just new creations and should be in brackets (this is also what today's Hungarians normally think based on my experience). Juro 16:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean anything like "subordination" even if I was wrong in a number of my assumptions. Rest assured that at most 5% of the Hungarians I know have the idea "remaining names are just new creations". (Though my sample may not be representative, the number coincides nicely with the proportion of the extreme-right voters over here. :)) KissL 16:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• "Despite the fact that the kingdom was called Hungary (which is a word identical with present-day Hungary in most languages)", "the word Hungary in the title is in no relation to the language" – now who's joking? The Kingdom was called Hungary because it had been established by the Magyars (which is obviously not claiming that either at the time of the establishment, or at any later time, Magyars would have been the only inhabitants of the area). Or do you think it was called Hungary by mere coincidence??? But the use of the Hungarian names is much better justified by the fact that the places in question did have (and still do have) a non-negligible Magyar population, which is again not any kind of coincidence (and again not claiming anything ridiculous like "so it is Magyar territory"). KissL 15:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The question was whether the name Kingdom of Hungary is in relation to the language (the answer is clearly no) and not how it arose - as an example: the name Belgium, Mexico, USA etc. equally has no relation to the language - nevertheless you are still doing this wrong conclusion. And, obviously you do not know much about the ethnic conditions in the Kingdom in the past. The percentage of Magyars, unlike the percentage of Germans for example, in towns like Bratislava or Kosice was literally 0 in the 16th century (that's the time we are talking about), actually it was very low up to the middle 19th century. It was only during the 16th century that the first Magyars started to come in greater amounts to Kosice, but still the percentage was low. Juro 16:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

We have a misunderstanding of definition then. I would never call two things derived from a common source "unrelated". Never mind. KissL 16:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• "You guys want [this and that]" as well as "you should have found out [this and that]", directed towards me, without me ever doing anything that you state "make such a sentence 10 times justified", are unjustified personal insults. I don't deserve being told stuff like that, the same as you don't deserve being told something like "you Slovaks want to deny the very existence of Magyars in Slovakia ever in human history" just because I have met Slovaks who are like that – unless of course you do or say something to this effect, which, to my knowledge, you haven't. KissL 15:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I still do not see any insult, not to mention a personal one. It is you who has interpreted the insult into the text. But you must understand that after your last edit concerning the names I had to include you in the group that wants to have Hungarian names everywhere in the wikipedia, that's all (I do not understand that as an insult). And I have explained above that I meant people editing in the English wikipedia in the way I explained above, nothing more and nothing less (I did not mean people outside the wikipedia). I could have written the same thing using other words, but that would take more time and the result would be the same. Maybe I should be more precise next time, if you take such things personally, but I am usually not so precise on talk pages - I just try to say quickly what I mean. Juro 16:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I understood my inclusion in that group as if you included me in the group of blind nationalists, and that's why I took it as an insult (although I think I'm both trying to maintain a clear set of reasons why and where Hungarian names should be included, and an openness to debate them, so I don't quite want to put the Hungarian names everywhere). I'll try to be less sensitive; thanks for your efforts on your side. KissL 16:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

And as for the rule, the basic rule is that we use the official name first and possibly other name-versions in brackets, and if there is a different important historical name (like Pressburg) we use the historical name, that's what is being done throughout the English wikipedia and seems to work. (and by the way note that we do not use historical names in every case, because since the names have changed 100 times in the meantime and nobody knows them anymore, it would be even confusing to use them - but that's not the problem here because we are talking about current name versions here) Juro 15:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm ok with such a rule; as I stated in the very first paragraph in this section, I was only puzzled why you put Pressburg first, while using the current names of all the other cities. I'd prefer Bratislava first and Pressburg in brackets, because I find it simpler for the reader, but as my area of interest doesn't cover all the articles where the city may be mentioned, I'll leave that to you (or others). KissL 16:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

As I already mentioned, I am always hesitating with Bratislava, but don't you think it's systematic to use Pressburg in history texts given that the town was renamed in 1919 (unlike the other towns)?Juro 16:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It is certainly systematic; my doubt is about it being practical for the reader. But as I said, I'll leave that to you, I just wanted to raise the point, so that it's not missed. KissL 16:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If we don't use new 20th city names because they are very anacronistic we can't use Cluj-Napoca too. Napoca is the old Latin name which was revived in the 1970s by the Ceausescu regime. The old Romanian name was only Cluj. - Zello

If you are sure that the town was renamed (and I really mean "sure", not that you just have an impression) than apply the same procedure for Cluj-Napoca as for Bratislava (see in the article) and make a redirect for Cluj if necessary. Juro 19:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah, now I see you have already done that...Juro 19:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It happened in 1974. - Zello

It's in the Cluj-Napoca article, in fact. KissL 09:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I had a look at the Danzig/Gdansk vote and I regret that we cannot reach such an acceptable solution. They considered every aspect, separeted different periods and so on. I think we should start a process like that, because the present state of affairs is far from being perfect. I think it would be better to use the names used by the majority of the city's population. This could be different in different periods, and of course we always indicate the present-day name and other variants in brackets - Zello

Forget the Danzig/Gdanks discussion, because the situation is completely different there: the town was part of Germany most of the time, the Germans used Germany as official language etc. There is absolutely no analogy to the Kingdom of Hungary. And your proposition shows a serious lack of knowledge of the complicated ethnic and linguistical circumstances in the KoH over the centuries. Even the smallest villages had at least 50 preserved names since the 13th centuries, not to mention the bigger towns and not to mention to difficulties connected with the udnerlying sources and not to mention the uselessness for a reader of using strange unknown old name variants. Juro 16:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the situation is very similar. These towns were part of Hungary most of the time. The KoH official language was Latin until the 1840s, but the nature of the state was Hungarian because the king, the nobles and the relative (in medieval time the absolute) majority of the population was Hungarian. It would be absurd if we couldn't use English town names in articles about the 12-13. century only because the Royal Chancellary's language was the Latin. About the names: you confuse orthography with different names. Indeed we're discussing about three or four variants (for example Pressburg-Bratislava-Pozsony or Kaschau-Kosice-Kassa) not 50. The whole question is about nationalistic sensitiveness similarly like the Polish-German edit wars. I don't think it easy to find a solution which is acceptable for everybody. Zello

I see, you just have no idea, but I am not surprised by anything here anymore... The problem with Gdansk is that it belonged to German states at some points of time and to Polish (Russian etc.) at other times - in what sense is that similar to towns being all the time part of one multhiethnic kingdom ?????????? Of course this is not a question of orthography (although in some cases it is) and you do not need to think much to grasp that names and pronunciation changes over centuries...The form Pozsony, for example (and there far more striking examples) occurs at the end of the 18th century for the first time, therefore it cannot be used IN THIS FORM for earlier periods because it is not testified, and the problem with the older forms is that they are confusing today. It is that simple. And the number 50 is even a too low estimate - but you would have to deal with that topic to know what I am talking about. Finally, the majority of the population WAS NOT Hungarian - even according to official Hungarian censuses - that's why Latin was used in the first place. There were 28% Hungarians in the state in the 18th century, and maybe 5% (in reality probably even less) in Royal Hungary and a Frankish chronicle writer has described the Hungarian state as a "Slavic" state in the middle ages (because there were so many Slavs in there - viewed by a third party) etc. I know Hungarian texts claim that there was a majority of Hungarians (so to say "at least") during the middle ages, but that cannot be proven and is highly improbable. Also, not all nobles were Magyar, in fact initially none of them were Magyars (you are confusing Hungarian in the sense "of Hungary" with Hungarian in the ethnic sense, which is a quite frequent error, from which all such discussions arise in the first place). And as I have described above the Latin language was used everywhere (ask the English whether their deputies were speaking Latin in the parliament in the 19th century...) and not only by the royal family (and on the other hand, the royal family is not decisive, because it also used German, Czech/Slovak etc. at some points of time depending on who was the king and with whom he was communicating). Also, if laws were not issued in Latin only, they were issued in several other languages etc..Juro 18:02, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Every state is more or less multiethnic even today. Medieval France or Poland or Bohemia were multiethnic, Slovakia today is multiethnic - but they have a state-nation which is French, Polish, Slovak etc. This was the case with Hungary too. Your claims about the percentage of Hungarians are factually wrong - but I'm sure that we were taught a totally different history in our school. Latin as an official language was ordinary in medieval Europe. Hungary was a very conservative (we can say peripherical) country which sticked to this custom until the 19. century. This was the case with the constitution too, it was absolute anacronistic in the 19. century. Pozsony with "zs" is a typical ortographical change, the name Poson was used from the age of the Árpáds. Slovak, Roman orthography changed a lot since the Middle Ages too: what about the s in Kosice? Should we ban the name? (I think not...) Zello

Uh...I see you do not even know your own Hungarian figures, but nevertheless pretend to know what you are talking about. The 28-30% are the official results of the census in the end of the 18th century, and the only time there were at least around 50% Hungarians in the Kingdom was immediately before WWI (- no other country in Europe, to my knowledge, was so multiethnic like this kingdom, you should read Paul Lendvai for example... ). Those are unadjusted official Hungarian figures, if I used non-Hungarian figures the numbers would be (and with good reasons, such as manipulated censuses) much lower... Bohemia, as an example, used Latin (early middle ages), then Czech, than German (and Czech) - I see no parallels to the KoH. Also, note that the KoH was "multi"ethnic in the sense that it consisted of a high number of nations (I hope I do not have to name them here...), so "multi" is very appropriate here...As for Latin, I have described above several times, why and when it was official - if you do not see a difference between Germans, for example, using German as official language appr. from the 13/14th century onwards and the KoH using Hungarian from 1840 (definitely only from around 1860), I do not see what arguments you need (and the reasons why Latin was used are actually irrelevant). And for the remaining period , i.e. the early middle ages, one can only guess what the population of the settlements and of the country was (there are only few settlements where such research has and can be done). As for Bratislava, since I am by coincidence expert for the history particular name, let me just tell you that I can just laugh when you say that the name did not change, it did change almost constantly and there were several versions of it even during particular chosen years (because people in the past did not care about keeping names constant or using systematic othography). And I can only repeat - the form Pozsony (for example) occurred in this form only in the late 18th century, any assumptions of how it was pronounced earlier are at best speculations (but this is an encylopaedia) - the first preserved form in a Hungarian text in the 12th century was "Poson" (that's another name, unless you have a time machine)... But even if we admitted that this or say 20 particular names did not change I can name literally thousands of names in Slovakia only that did change (even during the 19th century)... What I am trying to say by all this is that the only period for which we could apply what you have proposed with at least some underlying data is the 19th century, but even there most settlements would be disputable and the situation was changing very quickly, and an additional problem is that using such an approach for one century only is ridiculous, and that it would be also necessary to take into account the names used in English texts at that time (since this is an English language encyclopaedia)...Juro 01:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Juro, I agree with your standpoint about names, but I think you have a few weak arguments here:

• Zello said "a relative (in medieval times, the absolute) majority of the population was Hungarian". As you know very well, there are no reliable data whatsoever about the ethnic distribution before 1700 (to say the least), so while there is no proof of an absolute majority of Hungarians in the KoH, there is no proof to the opposite either.
• That a Frankish chronicle writer described Hungary as Slavic proves nothing. In the Middle Ages, it was totally common to call the Magyars Slavs, because most people in Western Europe were entirely ignorant about the linguistic relations beyond those among a select group of Latin-based and German-based ones, and whatever didn't fit into these (at that time kind of arbitrary) categories, they called it Slavic, including Hungarian (and Romanian and Bulgarian also, for that matter). Which even wasn't a big mistake, because the non-Slavic languages around here (including Hungarian) had, and still have, a nice amount of Slavic words. Calling the Hungarian language Slavic is a pretty common mistake by both British and French people even today, and I wouldn't think that their education is inferior to that of a medieval chronicler. In view of this, to say that the Frankish chronicler called Hungary a Slavic state because of the high number of Slavs is nothing more than speculation, and also likely to be incorrect, in my opinion (the correct reason would be simply out of ignorance).
• "Pozsony" is clearly a variation of "Poson" and not an entirely new name, without any need for a time machine. There sure have been some changes both in the pronunciation and the ortography, but it is essentially one name, just as "pur es homou" (10th century) and "por és hamu" (today) are the same expression. If we consider "Poson" and "Pozsony" different, we might just as well consider the Slovak language entirely different from the Slavic spoken in present-day Slovakia before the Magyar conquest ;o))

KissL 09:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The first official census in 1785 hadn't got any data about nationality. Before the middle of the 19th century we can only estimate the number of the Hungarians. In the 18th century relevant historians say 50-55 % in 1715-20 and 42 % in 1790. Erdély was an independent territory, there the percentage of Hungarians could be a bit lower. The first census with datas of nationality was in 1850. Then in Hungary and Transylvania (without of course Croatia) 48 % of the population was Hungarian. So in the early modern age this number is always between 40 and 50 %. Any other nationality was much smaller (max. 10-15 %) so I used the expression relative majority. In the Middle Ages the percentage of Hungarians were much higher. The radical decrease of the Hungarians is because of the two hundred years war with the Ottomans. (The datas are from the official Hungarian university history book).

Your ortographic arguments are weak. The English, French etc ortography changed a lot from the Middle Ages as the Hungarian, Slovak, Roman too. As I say if we couln't use Pozsony then we should rule out Kosice too. Zello

I thought you mean "relative" in terms of "in %"... Since "majority" normally means at least 50%, the Hungarians were not a majority. They were the largest group – in the 19th century and according to the official numbers at least (you can call it "relative majority" if you want to have the term "majority" there, although this term is used in politics and not in such contexts and is not really a majority because even 1% can be a "relative majority"). However, they were not the largest group, not to mention a majority, in the whole territory, of course, so I do not understand what this is supposed to imply for our topic. If the purpose was in general to distort language to the extent that you can somehow say there was a Hungarian "majority", then this attempt failed.

As for the 1785 census, my sources (and for example those of your colleague who appeared here today, although he is claiming another number) say it did yield results on nationality (I am not in a library now, but very probably they asked about the mother tongue – not directly the nationality) and that the number was 29%. Paul Lendvai, for example, (to take a third party I was able to find quickly in the internet, although he is a Hungarian) explicitely says there were "less then 1/3 Magyars" – so the 29% are approx. correct. Then we have the following data added by another Hungarian: "A first thorough research in 1836-40 put the percentage of Magyars at 36-37% and a census in 1850-51 at 45.4% in all the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary" (although the correct number [Slovac Academy of Sciences] is 41.5%: 4812000 out of 11 607 000 for 1850 – therefore any numbers higher then 40% after 1780, as stated above, are plainly wrong, because there was no reason for a decrease of Hungarians during that time). And around 1900 we have those 51%. So much for the 18th and 19th century (one can see a nice trend of increase of the Magyar population 30 – 36 – 45 – 50%, which is accelerated in the end of the 19th century). Then we have the time of Royal Hungary (which is the equivalent of the Kingdom of Hungary, unlike Transylvania that you have tried to include somehow in the last contribution), during which there were initially virtually no Magyars on that territory (excl. northwestern Trandanubia and Tokaj) later some of them moved to the north but still the relative number was very low - exact numbers are speculations. What remains is the middle ages, leaving again much space for speculation. And I am sure those who are claiming that there was an "absolute majority" of Magyars in the kingdom are the same who claim that there were no inhabitants in parts od Slovakia in the middle ages (it is interesting that these "nobodies" had thousands of villages, fields, castles etc. as excavated every day by archaeologists and which I have seen myself...) and there were no Romanians etc. – from this (wrong) point of view, of course, there were only Magyars everywhere :) ...If on the other hand I would take (which I do not) Slovak sources, for example, you would find out that the northern half of present-day Hungary was basically inhabited by Slovaks up to the 14th century. And I am sure there are similar sources from Romania, Serbia etc. .. Finally the Frankish chronicle was not meant as a proof, but I always find that information interesting (11th/12th century as far as I remember), because there is a clear difference between the Hungarian and Slavic language(s) and the Franks were direct neighbours of the kingdom, fighting with it almost regularly, so one cannot just say they did not know it, not 200 years after their arrival...Unfortunately, I do not remember any more which one it was, otherwise I could cite from it here...

And my argument is weak??? It is interesting how you understand any neutral statement as an attack against something Hungarian and respond with arguments concerning anything but not what we are talking about (but I am already getting used to it). Firstly, it would be interesting if you knew whom you are trying to persuade about the linguistic background of Pozsony ...but let's be concrete. I do not understand why you cannot accept the simple and obvious fact that names and pronunciation change – the fact that the form Pozsony is used in Hungarian texts TODAY even for times when the prince from whose name the name is probably derived was not born yet, is not an argument. And I did not say that Poson is not a variation of Pozsony I said that it is a word pronounced differently at least at two positions and is written differently, therefore it is another name (and you need a time machine to proove the opposite)– what is so difficult about that and what does that to do with the Slovak language??

Next, obviously you have never seen a medieval document or a list of older names of a settlement, otherwise this (useless) discussion would be superfluos. My argument was not about orthography (I am repeating myself already). Secondly, have you ever seen a native language document from the middle ages?? There was no "othography" for 99% of the population (and especially no universal orthography and especially not for names of settlements), and this applies to any country in Europe, as far I know...don't be so naive...Thirdly: Just go to archives and look at lists of old names of some settlement. As for examples, I would have to go to the library for the older names (which I will not do in such an obvious case), but let's just take some randomly selected Hungarian names from the 19th century (1 single century!, ignoring other languages and ignoring the fact that the names changed much more in the preceding centuries so that you would not even recognize them), say for the first letters of the alphabet: Abranovce: Abrahány – Abrány; Adamovce-Malé Bierovce: Adamóc és Kisbiróc – Ádámfalva, Bacúch: Baczuch – Vacok, Baďan-Klastava: Klaszita – Kalászi, Badín: Badin – Erdöbádony, Biskupice: Biskupicz – Püspöki - Igazpüspöki... And this is just a small selection of the names. Do you need 10000 other examples to show how complicated this is???

And as for Kosice: of course, we use Kosice as the current name that people can find on maps, i.e. as the only logical solution for cases where we do not know the old name or which one of the historic names to use...The argument above about changing names applies to Slovak names as well, of course.

And I hope we agree that your proposition is not feasible and that there are various sources with various data (although they should not be because the census data are quite clear). So any further discussion is a waste of time...Juro 22:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The low numbers can be the result of inclusing Croatia where no Hungarians lived and was a separate kingdom. The percentage of Hungarian was decreasing in the 18th century because of the constant immigration from Germany, Serbia and Wallachia.

Poson and Pozsony is the same name, this is obvious for every native speaker. There are a lot of family names with the same ortography change, for example Rósa = today rózsa etc.

The old names: there are new "Magyarized" placenames from the end of the 19th century. They were artificial and I don't want to use them because they are anacronistic. The other is a question of ortography and some little differences (attributes etc.). This is the case with old toponymy in every country and language. I know this because I studied history and I'm interested in old Hungarian toponymy. Zello

Then you have probably studied names from the last 100 years or so, because I am an expert in toponymy too and everybody who has the slightest idea of the topic can just laugh about what you are trying to say above. The fact that name A evolved from name B does not mean that we can use name B (and many cases name A did not even evolve from B), because we are talking about names and not about, say, animals, and every letter is important in names...And do you want to see other 10000 examples? And as for Pozsony, I have explained exactly what I mean, maybe the problem is that you prefer to use untestified name versions just because you "want" to (regardless of whether it is correct or not)Juro 01:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC) 01:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

---

• Where the Whites could not eliminate elements of the soviet republic, the Romanian forces did, with similar methods. - pls provide evidence -- Criztu 20:21, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Names cont'd

I'm starting a new section, because the old one is already too large.

Juro, it is not absolutely clear for me whether certain parts of your response are directed towards Zello or me, but anyway, I'll reply to what I find relevant for myself.

Relative majority seems to be a term that is rather used in an election context, though I thought it is common in everyday English. Still, I find the sentence "If the purpose was in general to distort language to the extent that you can somehow say there was a Hungarian "majority", then this attempt failed" offensive, and a sign that you're assuming bad faith; this is (1) no distortion of the language because the term exists, and (2) no one has tried to "distort" anything.

This part was directed at Zello. And yes, I am assuming bad faith after the last contributions. Since he repreatedly denies the absolutely obvious fact that the official language was Latin, that it is impossible to find the exact population (what ever population that may be) for most of the settlements for most of time, I understand all his contributions above dealing with anything (e.g. the name "Pozsony") but not with the topic at hand (and to which I was so stupid again to react assuming that this was a neutral contribution although ridiculous from the beginning actually) as a hidden attempt to change all names into Hungarian ones (which is not new here). Juro 01:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm out of this one then; if it's not for me, then it's none of my business either. KissL 13:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I've never denied that Latin was official language until 1844, I said the contrary in one of my comments. "The KoH official language was Latin until the 1840s" - I wrote this exactly. Don't distort the facts, it's not fair! But yes, I think Hungarian names are more appropriate in historical context. This is the subject of our discussion. So what is the reason for assuming bad faith??? I would say: I'm assuming bad faith because you try to use non-Hungarian names... Rather you should tolerate other opinions than yours. Zello 21:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

"It is interesting how you understand any neutral statement as an attack against something Hungarian and respond with arguments concerning anything but not what we are talking about" – well if there is distortion here, this is a whole set of them. First, I never took anything as "an attack against something Hungarian"; I once took something as a personal insult. That's not quite the same thing, is it? Second, what I took for an insult was not a "neutral statement" (let alone "any neutral statement"), but a statement on "what I have no idea about", and "what I should already know". I would expect "neutral statements" not to contain an expectation about my person or an authoritative description of my knowledge, but rather something about the point being discussed. Third, read again, my first sentence was "Juro, I agree with your standpoint about names", pointing out that I didn't want to contest anything essential you wrote, but simply provided feedback about some points you made meanwhile, in the good faith belief that this will help you improve your reasoning (and therefore our cooperation). If this kind of feedback annoys you, your choice.

Oh yes, "I do not understand why you cannot accept the simple and obvious fact that names and pronunciation change" – who exactly isn't accepting that? KissL 10:54, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have my own opinion on what you write here and have written earlier as a reaction to neutral statements, but I see no reason to continue this type of discussion. As for "who exactly is not...?" This was a reaction to your completely misplaced passage about "Pozsony". The only thing I have said was that the name changed and the present form is not preserved for the past. You,to my big surprise (but actually like always), have obviously understood such a neutral statement in the way that I am trying to deny that Pozsony is derived from Poson...I would never expect such a reaction...

Juro 01:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

You misunderstood that "misplaced passage". I was saying the same thing as you: that Pozsony was a name that evolved from Poson (and added a lame joke about the fact that the Slovak language evolved in the same way from some kind of old Slavic). But still, I never claimed or even suggested your (supposed) denial to be "an attack on something Hungarian", as I repeated and emphasised multiple times that having understood your arguments, I agree with the naming convention you are using. I won't go back to count it, but this is the third time at the very least that I'm saying this.

We are repeatedly misunderstanding each other, but I think this is not a reason to start nursing a personal dislike (which I haven't done so far, and don't want to do in the future either). Please, for the sake of useful cooperation, ask me first to clarify if you're outraged by something I say, because you have a very good chance that I didn't mean anything outrageous, even if what I wrote seems so to you. KissL 13:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

In this question we won't agree, except that 20th century artificial names are too anacronistic. This can be a rule for this article, and as for the others we should wait for new people's contribution or the opinion of the "International Reader" (if there is anyobody like that). We made clear our point of you: I think better to use Hungarian names in historical context, Juro think better to use present-day official names. We had our arguments but we were not able to convince each other. I presented a compromise to use different names according to the majority of the given city in the past. Zello

Most of the 20th century Slovak names, for example, are NOT anachronistic (and have never been more anachronistic than any Hungarian name) and they were not invented in the 20th century, many of them are (again, with changes in the word) even older than the Hungarian ones. You just cannot grasp this simple fact, can you? And a small hint: Maybe you should look at lists of German, Slovak, Romanian etc. names of Hungarian towns, too (which I am doing permanently), if such list exist in Hungary at all (apparently not). Just to widen your personal horizon... Juro 01:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes? That's new for me. I don't think so. Gubbubu 20:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Nobody said that most Slovak names were invented in 20th century. It's obvious that there are some new artifical place names in Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian etc - and we should avoid these. As for the other names of present-day Hungarian towns: there is such a list, I like these names, and I agree to use them. Only a handful of Slovak examples: Bekesska Caba, Civ, Santov, Mlynky etc. I can tolerate them, but you are not able to tolerate Hungarian names. Zello

Juro, just because you are citing from Slovak Academy of Science, it doesn't mean you got the TRUTH. Same for the Hungarian Academy of Science. Both are funded by government, so biased by politics. (If you do not agree on this, you are naive!) We are more close to the truth, when we say, that Slovaks and Hungarians have lived always together happily without major problem until we both were influenced by Nationalism. So some people were both Slovak and Hungarian, without clear distinction, as today. Also, we need to specify if you SPEAK the language or you believe what ETHNIC you are by heart. These data are always biased, so I prefer to say there is NO reliable data on ANY time about the ethnic diversion. For example, a lot of Hungarians claimed themselves Slovak, when in 1920, there was a law, that only Slovaks will get citizenship in Slovakia. They have marked themselves Slovaks, without knowing a word in Slovak. There is even today a small village near Eperjes/Presov where they only speak Hungarian, and know only few basic words in Slovakian.

I believe that the names of the Carpathian basin is 90% coming from Scythian naming convention (also the name Danubia/Tisa/Drava/Sava, Tarta/Matra/Fatra), these come much before Christ, before the Romans, and yes, there are Slovak (tot) names in Hungary, like Nograd or Csongrad. This could also mean that Hungarian language is 80% original Scythian, and Slovaks have taken words from Hungarian, not the other way around. These investigations are quite new, so not fully prooven yet, and based on new archeological excavations in Georgia, where they have found a work of a monk, describing Hun (Scythian) language, which is very similar to present day Hungarian. So let's wait a while, and we will see a more clear picture. Abdulka 08:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but was Scythian really related to Hunnish?? As far as I know, Scythian was a Proto-Iranian language, while Hunnish was most likely some kind of Turkic-Altaic. Hungarian, I should not have to remind everyone, is probably also Altaic but usually classified as Finno-Ugric (which I happen to think is a subset of Altaic, but that's just me.) There is no real evidence that I am aware of to suggest that Hungarian has its origins in Scythian--certainly there can be some words that were adopted from Scythian when the Magyars still lived in Etelköz, but "80% original Scythian"?? K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 02:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Some changes

• I indicated Beograd for Nándorfehérvár because nobody can identify the city except Hungarians without the present-day name. Ofen is important as the German name of Buda (the town had a German majority a lot of times in history). Gyulafehérvár is the Hungarian name of Alba Iulia (we are BEFORE 1920), I used in brackets.

• Bach was never the governor of Hungary, he was Minister of Interior of the Habsburg Empire. The governor was Archduke Albrecht that time.

• Nationality calculations in the 19th century were biased or - rather say - very tendentious. A sentence I deleted was litteraly true but without other facts it was misleading. If we mention territories without Hungarians (they existed of course, for example Croatia, Orava, Medjimurje), we have to mention territories with 90 % Hung. majority too. Or rather none of them... Zello

Polgar Lajos

If any experts on wartime Hungary read this and know anything about Polgar Lajos (also known as Ludwig Polgar), who was Hungarian Ambassador to Germany in 1944, please let me know. Adam 00:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Too many errors...

The sections on history in and after 1956 contain - besides their extreme anti-communist political bias and highly tendentious terminology which I'm afraid is unavoidable on Wikipedia - so many factual errors (for example the New Economic Mechanism was of course adopted in 1968, not 1966; the so-called "democracy package" plus constitutional revision was enacted in 1989, not 1988; besides some minor things real "oppositional" activity, including the founding of parties started in 1988, not 1987; Imre Pozsgay was an important political figure from 1988 on, but by far not the only official worth mentioning for the "transition" phase 1988-90 where numerous communist and anti-communist factions and tendencies competed for influence and power; in general, Hungary's "transition" may have been a bit "earlier" (approximately by one year) and rather "smooth", but believe me the power contest between communist and anti-communist forces was only finally decided by early 1989 and wouldn't have turned out that way without the international environment at that time - so, assigning Hungary's "transition to democracy" the epithet of the "first" and "smoothest" is a typical ex-post-facto rationalisation, mythologisation and "garment dyeing" by the historical "winners" so very characteristic of today's Eastern Europe where history and its respective "myths" are once again invented to fit current interests). At first I have tried to correct some of the more obvious errors while keeping Wikipedia's (or rather its editors') overall ideological framework, but then I have given up. So I can only beg all visitors not to take the information on Hungarian history presented here too serious - it's simply not worth it !

If it is that bad, please revise it as a person knowledgable on the matter rather than just shaking your head and walking away. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian People's Republic?

When was it named the Hungarian People's Republic, and was it named that for the entire post-war communist period? Shouldn't that name be mentioned in the article? -- TheMightyQuill 09:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It was Magyar Népköztársaság (Hungarian People's Republic, or People's Republic of Hungary) until 1989. Unfortunately I am not quite sure when exactly it got to be a People's Republic in the first place. AdamDobay 21:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Constitution of 1949 already this expression is used - Constitution of the Hungarian Peoples' Republic [1] --KIDB 06:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a paragraph about the 1949 constitution and mentioned the change of the name. Zello 15:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hungary's second communist government (1944-1956)

I don't think this title is correct. There were free elections in Hungary after the war, and a government where communists were in minority for a couple of years. (By the way, they were strongly supported by the Red Army controlling Hungary.) --KIDB 06:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Valid. The Smallholders party, which competed in those elections, has a wikipedia article as well. Still it was only a few years before the Communists siezed power. How about Rise of the Hungarian People's Republic? -- TheMightyQuill 11:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds impressing :-) --KIDB 11:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Images?

Could someone who speaks hungarian and knows hungarian history better than me please steal some more images from Magyar történelem? Like maybe something for 1848? I also like this image. -- TheMightyQuill 17:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The later image is the most famous picture of medieval Buda from Hartmann-Schedel: Veltchronik, München, 1493. It is topographically correct according to the archeological studies of the 20th century and was probably drawn around 1470. Zello 18:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary

I have made a major rewrite of this clause. Please, if somebody have some objections, let's start a dialogue.kuko 16:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

missing war with Czechoslovakia

for Slovakia in 1920/1921.

1956 Appeal

As you know, the 50th anniversary of 56 is near. If you also think the wikipedia article 1956 Hungarian Revolution should be feature article on 23 October then please visit Wikipedia:Article Creation and Improvement Drive and vote for it (edit> type #, space and four tildes below the previous vote). If it gets about 20 or 30 more votes quickly it could very well be chosen (probably within September) for a week's worth of collaborative improvement by the wider wiki community and subsequently has an excellent chance of becoming feature article on 23 Oct. as it should. Thanks! Istvan 20:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

BTW, please go vote for 56. It's very close to winning the AID next week. (sorry for that blatant plug) (actually, no Im not sorry - the 56-ers deserve the recognition) Istvan 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WWII April 4 1945

I have re-instated the traditional 4 April date as when the German Army left Hungary completely. However, there are statements that fighting took place in the areas of Rábafüzes, Szentimretelep and Magyarbüks until 12 April. Can anyone give a concrete reconciliation between the two versions of events? It could well be that the Soviets held the ground and there were German incursions, but that is inferring/guessing too much. I would favor letting the traditional version (4 April) stand, precisely because it was contemporary, unless someone has compelling evidence... Istvan 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

WWII

So, Lokimoki, would you like to talk about why your edits are valid, rather than adding them over and over? - TheMightyQuill 01:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hungary during the Second World War

The WWII section is pretty long now, and it doesn't really make sense to include this information in Hungary between the two world wars. Would anyone be opposed if I were to create Hungary during the Second World War, including the Vienna Awards, lead up, and some of the aftermath? Then we could summarize the information in this article, and link to the new one. - TheMightyQuill 03:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. KissL 08:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

done. - TheMightyQuill 07:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Too many maps?

Not that I have a problem with maps, but this article now has 12 different maps. I realize border changes are a major part of hungarian history (particularly among hungarian nationalists =)), but this seems a little excessive. Any ideas on how we can change things up a bit, so it doesn't look like simply a history of growing and shrinking borders? - TheMightyQuill 02:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I ask everyone who edits the page to review this edit [2], both for its content and to see if it fits the definition of vandalism. Based on this edit a user attacked and vandalized my user space, in an effort to violently defend his bizarre edit about "Hungarian dominance" in the 1848 revolution, and the deletion of some information from the article. Without discussing anything on this talk randomly calling opposing edits vandalism is not the best way to move forward to better the article. I would also like to see some sources or some justification for this alleged hungarian dominance in case of a liberal revolution that managed to get rid of serfdom in the first place. I'm intrested in what great thing did the emperor do for the serbs (except killing them by the thousands in WWI) and others that would justify the support he received? Croats were pretty pissed for the "reward" they received no? Hobartimus 09:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you edits weren't vandalism, but you did break the three revert rule, and waited until rather late in the conflict to add anything to the talk page yourself. I'm not sure what the user did your user space (added vandalism tags) can be considered vandalism either. If you would both discuss this calmly, it could probably be solved much easier. - 10:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid Hobartimus is using inaccurate and misleading information in this discussion. First, it was not my "bizarre edit" that I protected, but the previous version of this sensitive article - a compromise between numerous editors. Second, I called vandalism his/her edit deliberately violating WP:NCGN. I do not understand why he/she mentions an unrelated issue instead of explaining why he/she has repeatedly refused to follow the naming convention. Tankred 10:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Failing to comply with conventions in a somewhat stubborn way, while obviously a bad idea, does not qualify as vandalism AFAIK (and for this reason, if I were you, I would undo the addition of the uw4 template). I think the main problem here was that you were reverting because of the names while Hobartimus reverted because of the "other armies" clause, and both of you were ignoring the other half of the edit. In my experience, it has always been a good idea to go line by line if one's edit is contested, to find what the problem really is. KissL 10:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to Tankred) You should really read the definition of vandalism. Your indiscriminate calling of every edit you don't like "vandalism" is highly disruptive. You did it to me on other articles too. Also the term "Hungarian dominance" is bizarre exactly because the revolution did not win in the end, so we have no idea what would have happaned under a liberal leader Kossuth in a new country, a republic that was ahead of its time. Also there were royalists everywhere even among Hungarians, not just Serbs etc. who liked the Hapsburgs. Before the Austrian attack they never wanted to hear about armed conflict with the Hapsburgs some wanted to put Habsburgs on the Hungarian throne later even when they lost everything but their lives. Hobartimus 10:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Multiple names

I can understand the reasoning behind including former names of major cities in the Kingdom of Hungary, but it certainly does look a little clunky. The names most certainly ARE mentioned in each of the city articles, and in the introduction in all but Bratislava where there is a whole section devoted to alternate names. That said, in the context of the sentence, there was no Free Royal Town of Bratislava or Cluj-Napoca so why not just link to the old names, for instance Pressburg, which redirects to Bratislava anyway. People can figure out what happened. - TheMightyQuill 10:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with the point about the context of the sentence, could you implement your version as you see fit to see where would that take us, or outline it here? Hobartimus 10:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to encourage everyone to read WP:NCGN, which regulates the use of geographic names. Kissl's original edit was in accordance with that convention, Hobartimus' reverts were not. Therefore, we should keep Kissl's version. Tankred 10:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, that's really a naming convention and no one is talking about changing the name of the Bratislava article. Furthermore, that convention "is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense." That convention, however, does specifically mention that in "all articles using the name in question" and in "cases when a widely accepted historic English name is used, it should be followed by the modern English name in parentheses on the first occurrence of the name in applicable sections of the article in the format: "historical name (modern name)" but "it should not be done to the detriment of style."

In this particular case, we ARE talking about Free Royal Towns. There has never been a Free Royal Town of Bratislava (a name first used in the 1840s). I think that, because we are listing towns not simply mentioning one, using both old and new names is detrimental to style, and should be avoided. Ideally, we could link Free Royal Towns to Free Royal Towns in the Kingdom of Hungary (which could list these towns which any number of names), but unless one of you is willing to create such an article... - TheMightyQuill 10:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

As a further example, note how many articles link to the Leningrad redirect. When dealing with historical articles, using only the modern name seems a strange anachronism. - TheMightyQuill 11:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Leningrad, Stalingrad, Carthage, and Danzig are what the convention calls "widely accepted historical English names". The convention specifies what should be done to prove that "Kassa" is consistently used in English sources to refer to Košice in the 16th century. If this cannot be proven, the English Wikipedia should follow the English usage. Tankred 14:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Valid points. I've put in a request for comment so hopefully someone else can come up with a solution. If we need to, we can list the old names with new ones in parentheses, I just think that's ugly. - TheMightyQuill 06:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I again have to agree. There is a reason why we don't talk about the famous battle of Volgograd. Hobartimus 11:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The historical names should be at least mentioned, when used in historical context. --Lysy^talk 05:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed "Klausenburg" and "Ofen". I think the most relevant names for these towns in the period in question are the Hungarian ones (as we are talking about before 1526) and unless we can identify which name is which, it only causes confusion to use multiple historical names besides the modern name. KissL 08:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Other armies

How about these suggestions (bolded):

"...but also against those Serbs, Croats, Slovaks, Romanians and Transylvanian Germans living on the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary, who had their own ethnic-national movements, and were unwilling to accept the Hungarian dominance. At the same time, some members of these ethnic groups fought with the Hungarian army, like General János Damjanich an ethnic serb who became a Hungarian national hero through his command of the 3rd Hungarian Army Corps. - TheMightyQuill 10:02, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly fine with your solution. Tankred 10:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I agree too. However I think that with "some" or "those" before the list of nationalities, we don't need the detail about Damjanich anymore. Also, I find the word "dominance" a little too strong for describing the 1848-49 situation, but I can't think of a better one right now. KissL 10:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Hobartimus, can I go ahead and change to the passage above? - TheMightyQuill 10:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't need my permission to do anything go ahead and edit :) If you ask my opinion, I like the text except the much mentioned dominance part which I find odd, some source, justification or other is needed there I think. I would ask the proponents of the dominance part to explain what they want to say exactly with that part. Hobartimus 11:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the relation between Magyars and non Magyars around 1848 could be concluded properly in a single sentence. Here are my objections:

1. most of the ethnic groups were instigated by the Habsburgs against the Hungarian Revolution. in fact they were play off against each other

2. The violence between non-Magyars and Magyars started with a Serbian attack against a ... Romanian village ...

3. Romanians from Partium were on Hungarians side, just like the vast majority of Slovaks (25,000 Slovak people fought as Honved versus 1-2,000 in the Austrian army)

4. "and were unwilling to accept the Hungarian dominance." was in fact "and were dissatisfied with the nationality rights offered by the new Hungarian government". --fz22 11:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you mind introducing the above into the article so we could see how it would look? Hobartimus 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Passage

The following passage is interesting and topical but not in proper encyclopaedic or stylistic form for inclusion, and some points should be properly referenced. Perhaps editors may take from this and include as is appropriate. István 03:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

quote

Before going onward, we need to emphasize on the following:

Ethnicity = determined by the phisical features, its culture and own language. The most enduring are the biological features, the most impermanent is its language, the latter can be "changed". If we are looking for the origin of an ethnicity, we need to focus on the phisical, biological roots, also taking into consideration the culture, the mythology, poetry, etc., and we need to search for similar ethnicity in the past, so we may connect the the two in time and space. The origin of the ethnicity Magyars are disputed. What is sure, that they came from the East. The Magyars are the only Indo-European ethnicity in present day Europe.

Nation = consits of several ethnicities. The Hungarian nation blended the ancient autochton Scythian, Sarmatan, and later other ethnics, such as Jasz, Kuns, Saxons, Schwabs, Slovaks, Ukrainian, Romanian, Serb, Croatian, however, the backbone of Hungarian nation were - and is still now - the half mllion Magyars occupying Carpathian basin.

The present day Carpathian basin have grown to what it is today because: 1. The region is one of the most fertile areas on Earth, however, it was always barely populated before Magyars. The Hallastatts, the Celts, the Romans, the Langobards, Goths, Scyrs, Vandals (Vends), Heruls, Gepids did not settle down, only a few have stayed. 2. The Magyars from Inland Asia have been exchanging with similar ethnicity of Huns, Avars, later in 1243 and 1246 the Kuns have also arrived, and mixed with Magyars. 3. In the 4th century CE the inmoving Huns, and then the Avars arriving in 3 waves, have never been driven out of Carpathian basin, nor been exterminated. These ethnicity have been dissolved to Magyars as the phisics, the culture and the language was similar. 4. In the 7-6th century BC, the Post-Sumer Scythians, and cca 1st century CE the Sarmatans (Sauromatans) have evolved to this area, these ethnics have not been driven away, nor been exterminated, but joined the Magyars and have been an important root for the culture of Hungarians.

I. Chinese sources on Huns

The Chinese dynastic annales, encyclopedii, and traveller's documents have been authored by Éduard Chavannes, Johannes Jacob Maria de Groot and H.J. Bicsurin. The documents reveal that Chinese historians wrote a lot about Hsiungnu (=ordinary slaves): - Confucius writes that Huns live on the border of Goby desert. - Semaxien (Sa-ma-chien 145-90 BC) wrote the Shi-ki (Letters of History) where he mentions Hsiungnu (Huns) and the Onogurs. He writes the Huns "keep mainly horse, cow and sheep... for long distance, they use the arrow, for short distance, the sword and pikes"

II. "Turk", Tibetian and Mongolian written sources 1. Among the Turk (Turkish) sources, we find tomb carvings about the life of Tonyukuk in 720, the Okhek-hushotui carvings, the Sine-usu and Karabalgasun carvings. The writings of Yenisey are thought to be Kirgiz, and were written in an Alphabet which is very similar to anciant Hungarian alphabet (rovásírás).

Some facts are outdated?

Please comment the following, if you agree, I will make modifications:

- Genetic approach: the closest genetic relatives of Hungarians are Polish, Croats and Ukrainians, respectively. This means we are not from Finno-Ugoric origin. The Finno-Ugric approach can be justified by Scythian origin: the two lands were bordering each other, we could exchange some words and even grammar, but we are not originating from the same roots. By any way, we are not closer to the origin of Hungarians!

- Christianity of Hungarians: it is not true St. Stephen was Christianising by force, as he himself (and all Hungarians) have been already Christians. This was a genuine Christianity based on solely the New Testament. We know little of this religion, unfortunately, which was terminated by Turkish and Hapsburgs. Proofs: 1.) tombs of ancient Magyars with buried cross, some of these were destrozed by Causcescu, 2.) language: words of unknown origin "egyház", "böjt", "húsvét" can be derived from ancient religious acts, 3.) Sacred Crown, if we take away the later added icons, we can only see saints from New Testament, 19 of them, each coming from India or Scythia(!) [Why we need to celebrate St. Stephan is that he got the crown (Sacred Crown, Sacra Corona), which is an apostolic crown, which has a mystic "body" with a meaning of "Laws", the "governing body" and the "sacred borders" (sic, this is Great Hungary), this is connected to the heaven, so the land of Carpathian basin is sacred and it is one inch closer to the heaven.] Abdulka 16:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources for any of this? - TheMightyQuill 17:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Corruption problems

I still think it is forcing an opinion on the reader to say anything like "biased left-liberal media". If you want to say that there was no proven corruption problem, the right way to say that is "alleged corruption problems, which later turned out to be made up" or something like that – with a very good reference. But since I think there were quite some corruption allegations that were actually not made up, even though most (or all) of Keller's cases were, this will probably need further refinement. KissL 09:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In history, I think it will be remembered that the Fidesz lost the 2006 elections because the Socialists and the Free Democrats, through their propaganda, managed to convince the people that the economy was well off and they had been pursuing sound and fruitful economic policies throughout their term. Both claims proved to be false entirely. The Fidesz's "negative political campaign", as the article puts it, mostly proved to be true (rising inflation, budget on the verge of bankruptcy, etc.). If the MSZP-SZDSZ government had admitted that the budget was falling apart, and had introduced the austerity measures before the elections, no way that the elements the article mentions as the reason why the Fidesz lost this election, such as the rampaging of Mikola, etc., could ever have prevented the Fidesz from winning a landslide victory. So, I think, this part of the article needs to be put into perspective, as now it reflects a mid-2006 point of view. Zigomer trubahin (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Carpian Pressure?

Second sentence of the first Paragraph of Origins of the Hungarian state... Can someone explain this? Perhaps elucidate what this 'Carpian Pressure' was, within the context of the fall of the West Roman Empire, at least on the Carpia page? Also, please include references. MrPMonday (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

the carpians were free dacians that were not conquered by the romans, they lived in what is now northern romania, panonia and southern ukraine, will try to fix this issue. Adijarca (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Existing of dacians is not proved after the 5th century AD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stears1981 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --19:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Section 6.1 Transition to Communism (1944-1949)

Was the siege of Budapest really "the longest siege of any city in the entire war" in World War II? What about the siege of Leningrad (872 days from 1941-44)? Iain (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Stalingrad also lasted longer. Far be it from me to make an actual change, but the statement can be made factual (as far as I know) with the addition of one of the following modifiers to seige: Allied Forces, Soviet or successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcblalock (talk • contribs) 20:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of Hungary

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Hungary's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Congress":

• From Hungary: Library of Congress country study on Hungary
• From Transylvania: "Early history". A Country Study: Hungary. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress. Retrieved 2008-12-02.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

President Bajnai and the Economic crisis

The page should be updated with events of the past 5 months, with the huge hit of the crisis on the country, the "downfall" of Pres. Gyurcsány and some lines about the current president, Gordon Bajnai 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the crisis started around December 2006 . (More than 1 year before international crisis.) --Celebration1981 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the "President" is called László Sólyom, not to be confused with "Prime Minister". Hobartimus (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)