Talk:Hungary

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

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

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

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

New constitution (2012)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Official names of Hungary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 2012-: Magyarország ("Hungary")

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1999 Hungary joined NATO, not EU.

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

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

Edit request on 27 January 2012

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

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

Edit request on 31 January 2012

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

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