Talk:History of Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Hungary (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject European history (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

File:Hungary 11th cent.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Hungary 11th cent.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Hungary 1550.png Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Hungary 1550.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Third Republic (1989-2011)[edit]

I had to remove a couple of sentences because wiki is an encyclopedia. Please add reliable sources about these statements (as " authoritarian rule", " abolish the very Constitution and replace it with their own "Basic Law" after a mere three-week debate inside their party" etc).Fakirbakir (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

New constitution (2012)[edit]

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 14:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hungary is officially no longer a republic. The title "Republic" has been taken out of the name, which is now simply "Hungary". I don't know what we should classify Hungary right now, but it's something like the Horthy-era "monarchy without a king" right now, so... 80.99.46.76 (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hungary is still a republic. The name of a country and its form of government are two different things. There is a similar discussion going on at Talk:Hungary#New_constitution_.282012.29, we should not repeat the arguments twice. Please, also note that Wikipedia is no place for personal political opinions, see WP:NPOV. Koertefa (talk) 06:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hungary has replaced its Constitution. While it was only transformed from a republic to a republic, it still should be called the 'Fourth Republic' from now on. There is no continuity between the two constitutions. N.11.6 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Recent history[edit]

The recent history sections of this article make it seem that Hungary has transitioned from a democratic state to a fascist one, this seems largely biased towards certain POVs, maybe a disgruntled socialist with an axe to grind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.31.15 (talk) 03:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You are right, the current last section is not neutral, it is a strong POV. I am going to address the problem. Koertefa (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that unbalanced paragraph (viz., the last one here [1]) is being continuously re-added. In my opinion, it is strongly not neutral, e.g., claiming authoritarianism is a popular actual political attack, which may or may not be true, but at least it is highly controversial and far from being universally accepted (especially, if we compare Hungary with really authoritarian states). Nevertheless, I can perfectly accept if somebody has this opinion, but it is only an opinion and not a fact. Such personal political statements have no place on Wikipedia. A similar claim is that "The body of judicial autonomy is abolished.", I do not think that it is a balanced/neutral statement that can be accepted by most of us, it is also just an opinion. There were at least 3 editors who found that paragraph strongly unbalanced; in its current form it has no place in the article. I also think that it contained arbitrarily selected, misinterpreted events. This article on the "History of Hungary" should give a general high-level overview on the topic instead of providing some details through a strongly politically motivated interpretation. However, the article should discuss the new constitution, together we could work out how to present it neutrally. Koertefa (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

to Koertefa from Thinhun: I state facts from the recent history of Hungary. Instead of arguing the facts, you simply remove them. This is called censorship. Thinhun (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time to reply. I think that the paragraphs which you always re-add do not contain facts, just your personal political opinion. Please note, correcting or removing biased text is not censorship, it is the way Wikipedia works. Anybody can edit the articles and if you write something that other editors do not agree with, they will modify or delete your contribution. I have already started the discussion on this section weeks ago, I am happy to see that now you are also willing to participate.
In my opinion, the paragraphs that you have added only contain your biased point of view. Take a look at, for example, the very first sentence: "The years 2010 and 2011 saw the rapid transition of the country from democracy to authoritarian rule." How do you define "authoritarian rule"? Can you bring some references supporting this claim? The article that you cite from "Népszabadság" (which newspaper clearly supports the opposition) does not even mention the word "authoritarian". It is just your (politically motivated) interpretation, the statement is not adequately referenced. The second sentence: "The FiDeSz government cancelled the previous checks and balances: restricted the role of the Constitutional Court, then enlarged it with its own appointees.". As a reference you cite the website of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, which just contains general information about the institution, such as its aims, the CVs of the members, etc. This clearly does not prove the claim in the text. Then, you write "The constitution of 1989 granted absolute power to a party with more than 2/3 of the seats in Parliament, and FiDeSz used this deficiency to abolish the very Constitution and replace it with their own "Basic Law" after a mere three-week debate inside their party". I couldn't find any proof in the references that the debate was only internal and lasted for three-weeks. Moreover, putting the words Basic Law between quotation marks already suggests that you do not accept it as a constitution. By using words such as "merely" and "abolished" you try to influence the reader towards your point of view. Every sentence of your paragraphs is highly not neutral. The whole addition should be deleted. Koertefa (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

European Parliament resolution of 16 February 2012 on the recent political developments in Hungary (2012/2511(RSP), excerpts: [for the full text, see http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P7-TA-2012-0053+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN ]

[...] D. whereas the adoption of the cardinal laws raised concerns in a number of fields, notably the independence of the judiciary, the independence of the central bank, the independence of the data protection authority, fair conditions of political competition and political alternation, as well as the so-called stability law subjecting the income tax system to a two-thirds majority and the cardinal laws giving exclusive right to the current majority to appoint officials for an unusually long term, thus affecting the ability of future governments to govern;

E. whereas the new head of the National Judicial Authority and the Chief Prosecutor will have the right to assign cases to tribunals, thereby infringing the principle of the right to access to court and to a fair trial and of the independence of the judiciary;

F. whereas, according to the new Constitution and its Transitional Provisions, the Supreme Court was renamed the ‘Kúria’, and the 6-year-long mandate of the former Chairman of the Supreme Court was ended prematurely after 2 years;

G. whereas the new Constitution stipulates lowering the mandatory retirement age of judges and prosecutors from the previous 70 years to 62 years of age, except for the President of the Kúria and the Chief Prosecutor, which may be discriminatory and will lead to the retirement of approximately 300 judges, which is a serious intrusion into the independent functioning of the judiciary;

H. whereas, according to the provisions of the new Constitution, the previous system of four parliamentary commissioners has been downgraded to one, terminating prematurely the 6-year-long mandate of the Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information and transferring its powers to a newly founded authority, which is a serious intrusion into his independence;

I. whereas the Hungarian Parliament has adopted several retroactive laws, thereby contravening one of the basic principles of European law, namely that of not adopting retroactive laws;

J. whereas the recently-adopted law on churches and religious denominations contains unusually restrictive rules on the registration of churches and makes registration subject to parliamentary approval with a two-thirds majority;

K. whereas, under the provisions of the constitution, the powers of the Hungarian Constitutional Court to review budget-related laws have been substantially diminished;

L. whereas the significant number of matters relegated, for detailed regulation, to cardinal laws requiring a two-thirds majority, including issues which should be left to the ordinary political process and which are usually decided by simple majority, raises concerns, as expressed by the Venice Commission report;

M. whereas Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission, underlined the intention of the European Commission to verify whether the new organisation of the judicial system in Hungary affects the independence of the judiciary; whereas Vice- President of the European Commission Neelie Kroes and the leader of the High-Level Group on Media Freedom and Pluralism, Vaira Vike Freiberga, have repeatedly expressed their concerns over the freedom and pluralism of the media in Hungary;

N. whereas the President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, underlined on 18 January 2012 that, apart from the legal aspects, concerns have also been expressed regarding the quality of democracy in Hungary, and appealed to the Hungarian authorities to respect the principles of democracy and freedom and to implement them not only in principle but also in practice and in political and social life in Hungary;

O. whereas on 17 January 2012 the European Commission started infringement procedures against Hungary on three subjects: the independence of the Hungarian Central Bank, the lowering of the mandatory retirement age of judges enshrined in the Basic Law of Hungary, and the independence of the data protection authority, and also asked the Hungarian authorities for further information on the issue of the independence of the judiciary;

....

1. Expresses serious concern at the situation in Hungary in relation to the exercise of democracy, the rule of law, the respect and protection of human and social rights, the system of checks and balances, equality and non-discrimination;

2. Calls, in the joint interest of Hungarian citizens and the European Union, on the Hungarian Government to comply with the recommendations, objections and demands of the European Commission, the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission regarding the aforementioned issues and amend the laws concerned correspondingly, respecting the basic values and standards of the European Union;

3. Takes note of the commitment of the European Commission, the Council of Europe and the Venice Commission thoroughly to examine the compliance of Hungarian legislation with not only the letter but also the spirit of European law;

4. Calls on the European Commission as guardian of the Treaties to monitor closely the possible amendments and the implementation of the said laws and their compliance with the letter and spirit of the European Treaties and to conduct a thorough study to ensure:

(a) the full independence of the judiciary, in particular ensuring that the National Judicial Authority, the Prosecutor's Office and the courts in general are governed free from political influence, and that the mandate of independently-appointed judges cannot be arbitrarily shortened;

(b) that the regulation of the Hungarian National Bank abides by European legislation;

(c) that the institutional independence of data protection and freedom of information is restored and guaranteed by the letter and the implementation of the relevant law;

(d) that the right of the Constitutional Court to review any legislation is fully restored, including the right to review budgetary and tax laws;

(e) that the freedom and pluralism of the media is guaranteed by the letter and the implementation of the Hungarian Media Law, especially with regard to the participation of civil and opposition representatives in the Media Council;

(f) that the new electoral law meets European democratic standards and respects the principle of political alternation;

(g) that the right to exercise political opposition in a democratic way is ensured both within and outside institutions;

(h) that the law on churches and religious denominations will respect the basic principles of the freedom of conscience and refrain from subjecting the registration of churches to the approval of a two-thirds majority in the Hungarian Parliament;

Thinhun (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort. The document that you have cited is just a political statement initiated by some members of the European Parliament. These members include Csaba Tabajdi and Kinga Göncz, both are members of the Hungarian Socialist Party (MSZP), the greatest rival of the currently governing Fidesz. Needless to say that Wikipedia should not be a playground of politics. Moreover, this document only talks about concerns and not facts and I do not see claims about "authoritarian rule" and "astonishment" of the Constitution, etc. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 03:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I personally hate FIDESZ for being demagogue and decieving, but the last section what the contributor wrote is a disgrace to the country. Authoritarian system is North Korea, Cuba and Belorussia. Comparing our country to them is simply false. For example, currently there is no secret police in Hungary and there are no unjust arrests. Also there are no forced confessions claimed by torture in prisons. I have reedited the latest section into a form that is worthy for an encyclopedia article. N.11.6 (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions, they indeed improved the section. On the other hand, this section is way too ample and contains irrelevant details. This section has an undue weight with respect to the whole article. In my opinion, we should have just a few sentences about this, e.g., stating that there is a new constitution which has been a subject to criticism, etc. Most of the current contents of the paragraph are actual politics and are not interesting on a historical-scale. The tile "Forth Republic" is not acceptable, since the name of a country, its constitution and its form of government are different things. Hungary's form of government has not changed: Hungary is still a republic. Please, also see the discussion here: [2]. Furthermore, our personal feelings (e.g., whether we adore, hate or neutral towards Fidesz) should not appear in this section. A text is good if its claims are acceptable from (almost) every points of view. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 03:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I was very careful not to write on a way that contributes POV to the article. This remains to be my strategy.
Other: I have written my opinion on the Fourth Republic issue on the New Constitution section of this talk page. I am not convinced we are still living in the Third Republic. N.11.6 (talk) 20:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Between the wars[edit]

Also the history between the wars is biased. I don't like the the history written by the winners (today often democratic); however, also the history written only by the losers could be equally biased. Particularily calling "claims" those by nonhungarian nations and "rights" those of Hungary, is quite unfair. A historian should understand the reasons of both parts. Lele giannoni (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Dear Thinhun[edit]

Just some remarks. WP is a community with consensually accepted rules. Rules can be modified, but until a modification is accepted according to due procedure by our communities, there is no place to deviate arbitrarily from them. WP is not a dictatorship, where one person is entitled to freely express his/her own views in articles, while all other editors are to follow the community rules. One of the basic rules of our community is that all information presented in an article is to be based on at least one reliable source. Therefore, any claim can be presented, including the claim that we Hungarians are now living in a dictatorship, provided that it is substantiated by reliable source. Furthermore, we should also consider, that the view on "Orbán's dictatorship" is a POV, which is not shared by many people. Therefore, a proper balancing is also necessary. In lack of balancing, a POV would be forced to a whole community. Minden jót! Borsoka (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. I think that Thinhun should also carefully read the Wikipedia policy on original research. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I left out the word "dictatorship", and just listed some of the steps the Orban government took in 2011-2012. No matter what, you deleted my contribution completely. It is obvious you do not want the English-speaking Wikipedia-readers to learn about the current situation in Hungary. Thinhun (talk) 09:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)