Talk:Hungary in World War II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk[edit]

What a sentence, "ancestral enemies": "The thought of these ancestral enemies [Slovaks, Croats, Romanians] on Hungarian soil was seen as far worse than German control." With such attitudes it is not so difficult to understand what is going on in Hungary now, with extreme right Jobbik earning much of the votes, and nationalistic Orban in power, they simply cannot overcome their own ghosts.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.81.23.126 (talk) 11:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason this article isn't simply included within Hungary? Philippe Beaudette 02:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it definitely shouldn't be part of the Hungary article, so I assume you're meaning the History of Hungary article. If you look, World War II national histories are actually quite common. As this topic is expanded, it would become incredibly large. Most countries break up their national histories into time periods... for example History of Poland (1939–1945). If all this was included alongside the entire history of poland, the article would be... a little long. Same goes for Hungary. So History of Hungary will eventually be properly edited into Wikipedia:Summary style. - TheMightyQuill 02:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kassa was probably bombed by the German army, since Hitler wanted Hungary to declare war against the Soviets. At those times, the Soviets had no reason to attack the independent Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilahok (talk • contribs) 13:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Turan I - 1944.gif[edit]

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)[reply]

Help needed[edit]

I have raised an issue about the history of the Kingdom of Hungary during WWII : you may read about this here. Any help would be very welcome. Thanks, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed revisions re. Jews and Roma[edit]

I propose to make some revisions to this article. The main changes would be as follows.

1. “However from the start of German occupation in 1944, Jews and Romas were deported and over 450,000 of them were exterminated in concentration camps.”

I would change this to: “However from the start of German occupation in 1944, Jews and Romas were deported to the Auschwitz Birkenau Concentration and Extermination Camp. By the end of the war, the death toll was between 450,000 and 606,000 Hungarian Jews and an estimated 28,000 Hungarian Roma.”

I would cite Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews, Bantam, 1986, p. 403; Randolph Braham, A Magyarországi Holokauszt Földrajzi Enciklopediája (The Geographic Encyclopedia of the Holocaust in Hungary), Park Publishing, 2006, Vol 1, p. 91; and David Crowe, “The Roma Holocaust,” in Barnard Schwartz and Frederick DeCoste, eds., The Holocaust's Ghost: Writings on Art, Politics, Law and Education, University of Alberta Press, 2000, pp. 178–210.

2. “A heroic Swedish diplomat, Raul Wallenberg, was able to smuggle some Jews out of Hungary with fake passports.”

I would change this to: “Swedish diplomat Raul Wallenberg saved thousands of Budapest Jews using Swedish protective passports.”

3. “Anne McCormick, a foreign correspondent for The New York Times, wrote in defense of Hungary as the last refuge of Jews in Europe, declaring that “as long as they exercised any authority in their own house, the Hungarians tried to protect the Jews.”

I would delete this as POV. Hungary’s treatment of the Jews as compared to Germany’s is dealt with elsewhere in the article in a more factual manner.Hirschjoshua (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom?[edit]

Who was king? ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. In fact, there was no King of Hungary in that time, only a Regent, Miklós Horthy. Charles IV of Hungary was the last crowned King of Hungary, but he could not retake his throne. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is easy. Hungary was a kingdom, but the main representative was not a king but regent admiral Horthy. Of course, it does not mean that Hungary had some sea, it was a landlocked coutry (with some potential territorial demands toward Romania and Slovakia, but these coutries were not enemies, but tallies :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.12.22 (talk) 11:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hungary in World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hungary in World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war[edit]

KIENGIR and LordRogalDorn are currently engaged in an 4-day edit war on this page. I suggest strongly that you discuss whatever changes are at issue on the talk page and seek consensus rather than the face sanctions which will undoubtedly be imposed if you continue. Please consider this a friendly attempt at mediation. Thanks, —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron:,
thank you for your feedback. As pointed out as well to the admins at AN3, the discussion is at the Hungarian irredentism talk, where the user have the same problematic edits as in a bunch of pages, refusing to follow our policies. But as you opened this thread, I have to say, the article has been neutral, since it redirected the reader to the Northern Transylvania article, where the censuses with estimations are presented in the best detail, that is out of scope here (the user is bullying the same partially problematic content on several articles). As an involved admin pointed out everywhere the status quo ante version has to be restored.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
@Rjensen:,
Hi, per policy I restored the page for the reasons mentioned above. This also touched your recent edits, which have no problem, they will be readded when the process is closed in the other page's dispute resolution. Regards.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, as KIENGIR pointed out, we are currently discussing this issue on the Hungarian irredentism talk, where the user insists on using the term "Has a significant Romanian population" despite the population at the time being majoritary Romanian, arguing that the word "significant" is appropriate and neutral designation to any direction. I replied that if he feels that way, then we can reach a compromise and state "Has a significant Hungarian population" instead, since according to his own words, its basically the same thing. He has yet to reply whether he agrees or disagrees with this. I also provided a source for the 1940 census, since the beginning of our discussion, yet he is still against posting it on the page, favoring the 1930 and 1941 censuses instead. He is also against stating the 55% Yugoslav population in Vojvodina, as the source states, breaking the illusion through omission that the Hungarians were the majority in that region, he refused on the grounds that "I'm playing with words" despite writing only what the source state with no personal interpretation. Even when the source that he himself provided contradicted him, pointing out that its misleading to state the 1941 census without the mention of the Hungarian immigration following the Second Vienna Award, he still refused the edit, yet again wishing to keep the illusion that the Hungarians were the majority in that region through omission. His response is a vague "it's against the policy" without point out specifically what that policy is, despite me already asking him multiple times to point out the policy he thinks I'm breaking. When I asked for a compromise, he replied that the only compromise he agrees with is posting the 1930 census next to the 1941 census, with no mention of the 1940 census, the population of Vojvodina as stated in the source or the mention of mass immigration. At this point, I believe he is filibustering to avoid edits that he doesn't like. We continue our discussion in the Hungarian irredentism talk, which is why we (hopefully) both believe there no need to have the same discussion on 2 different talk pages. Hopefully, we can settle this with a compromise. LordRogalDorn (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to repeat yourself twice. We don't know who was the majority that time. I replied to everything. I told what are the problem with the claimed "1940 census" along with broader problems. Sorry, I am able to read a source. And again, nothing contradicted me, this you did after your controversial edit and the Hitchins quote together. I responded to you in detailed extent, just beucase you refuse to undestand and see some thing is not on me.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
The user just made moficiation to the page referreing to to another RFC, which is not not even closed and not even binding here, on the other hand inserted material that was not even supported or discussed in the RFC.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

@KIENGIR: and @LordRogalDorn:, if you continue to edit war on this page you will both be blocked irrespective of which of you is in the right. Please read WP:3RR. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brigade Piron:,
I am not edit warring, I restored the page per policy, by disruption it is evident, check the evidence above. Of course, I will not continue further, you can be fully sure I am aware of our policies and keeping it, as I did so far, so no need to remind me especially. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
@Brigade Piron:, (1) the user @KIENGIR: did not revert the page to the status quo as the policy requests, but an even earlier edit of his own choosing, from 7th of June. (2) the RFC is binding here because it's exactly the same subject, and we both previously agreed to discuss the matter of both pages there. Please see our discussion above this one where we both agree to discuss the matter there. (3) We have already discussed this with 3rd opinions and the discussion is over. Out of 4 participants, three users are in favor of just quoting the census figure directly. User @KIENGIR: insists the RFC is not over but none of the 3 users has anything else to add, and @KIENGIR: failed to make a case for why the quotes shouldn't be quoted directly. Only he is active in the discussion at this point. According to policy, when multiple people disagree with you and consensus is against you, you must accept it. Continuing to argue in the face of a clear consensus can be considered disruptive. This is exactly what @KIENGIR: is doing now. At what point am I allowed to edit the page in accordance to RFC's decision? Please note that user @KIENGIR: will never give consensus. LordRogalDorn (talk) 06:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now everyone may see again the problematic phenomenon to be justifified:
1. failing again WP:COMPETENCE, unable to check a single diff, not understanding terminologies. The revert is status quo ante.
2. just because some parts are similar and we refer to a discussion another page, does not make an RFC binding, which was raised another page, moreove here the content has not been even identical
3. again, not knowing WP procedures, no the discussion is not over, (and his summarization again fails, btw., failing to interpret sentences, there is no disagreement with me (just becuase you do not understand properly some sentences); more alternatives were asked from the community, and as well not understanding RFC policy about consensus, etc., discussion this user continued all the way, mentioning me, etc.)
That's all about reality, and what is disruptive. You don't know when you are allowed to edit? It's interesting, you insist you know everything, and others don't. This is your main problem. I have "given consensus" for every wise edit, but not the opposite. Your bludgeoning everywhere and completely false identification of the happenings are striking and highly concenrning, since ever.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
1. Hitchins' quote is missing. You agreed with posting Hitchins' quote and gave your consensus. Your problem were the other edits. Therefore the version with Hitchins' quote is the status quo one.
2. They are not similar, it's the exact same information on the same subject, just in different articles.
3. Out of 4 users, 3 already gave their opinion on the matter. What you have there is a monologue not a discussion. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Again, you are unable to view diffs appropriately. Status quo ante is the current status (this context, before any of the edits were introduced).
2. Just because you introduced similar modifications without consensus, does not approve your assumptions.
3. No, everybody gave an opninion (again unability to interpret written things, checking diffs), and sorry monologues are apparantely not mine.
This discussion should not continue, per serious failure of competence, unless you don't see what you are missing continusly, it's useless.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]

RFC[edit]

Should we use phrases such as "divided more or less evenly between Hungarians and Romanians" or just quote the census figures directly in the article? An RFC on the same subject was made here [[1]], however, the other user argues that "it not bounding here and the issue is a bit different" (please, see the page edit comments) despite previously arguing that "given Hungary at WW2 articles's issues are practically identical with HU Irr article". Rather than to argue with him on whether they are idential, I decided to request a separate RFC here in order to avoid further conflict. Please see these 2 diffs for better refference: [[2]] and [[3]]. LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose any change The current wordage is totally perfect and neutral, no reason to import here problems which were not present. Just because the user's edits in the two pages were similarly problematic and we don't have to discuss twice one subject (= the user's edits are the issues which are practically identical), would not mean an RFC at one page would affect another one, hence there has been a different content regarding this subject.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
  • Just quote the census figures directly, the current wordage is historically inaccurate according to peer reviewed RS, estimations made by editors are subject to novel interpretation, where as the census figures themselves are exact. LordRogalDorn (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Census figures are not "exact", but (at least in this part of the world) often subject to various types of manipulation by the authorities who are carrying out the census. What do scholarly sources say? (t · c) buidhe 13:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe:,
the scholarly sources refer to the official censuses, which results are nearly inverted compared to each other while contrary what was said above, peer reviewed RS leave the question undecided, based on the earlier mentioned as the percentages oscillate near 50%, hence the current wordage is fine, anyway this article's scope is outside the details, just concise reference is enough.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
@Buidhe: one scholarly source already listed on Wikipedia is Keith Hitchins, who states the following - Far from settling matters, the Vienna Award had exacerbated relations between Romania and Hungary. It did not solve the nationality problem by separating all Magyars from all Romanians. Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Romanians, or 48 per cent to over 50 per cent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used, remained north of the new frontier, while about 500,000 Magyars (other Hungarian estimates go as high as 800,000, Romanian as low as 363,000) continued to reside in the south.
Contrary to what was said above, the earlier mentioned (official censuses) don't have the percentages oscillate near 50%. We have the 1940 censues which clearly states: 48% Romanian and 38% Hungarian according to the Hungarian census, and 50% Romanian and 37% Hungarian according to the Romanian census, see the connection to Hitchins. Even if we only use the 1930 and 1941 censuses, it's fallacious to argue that because the results are nearly inverted (the 1930 showing a Romanian majority while the 1941 shows a Hungarian majority) this must mean that their number was nearly equal in 1940, for multiple reasons: (1) it's the middle ground logical fallacy. (2) There is no listed source to directly state this or imply to it, meaning it's OR. (3) There was a Hungarian migration to Northern Transylvania after the Second Vienna Award when it became part of Hungary, hence the 1941 numbers are not representative for 1940. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again misleading and fallacious argumentation, you identify estimations as censuses, although this issue has been already discussed and demonstrated nearly 1 month ago (WP:LISTEN, as usual). 49 - 38 / 39,1 - 53,5 are nearly inverted results, middle ground logical fallacy or whatever you try to invent goes to you as you try to connect it to a specific date or other migrations (this is OR, as many other whereabouts could be also taken into account in a 11 year span, to say nothing of as well other ethnics declared differently their ethnicity by possible fear). Again, we don't know exatly what was the situation, just that is more or less even, which is in comply with the Hitchins quote as well. Hope you won't continue identical WP:BLUDGEON-ing as in the other page.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Again misleading and fallacious argumentation, I provided 2 sources while you provided nothing. Your opinion alone counts for nothing, although this issue has been already discussed and demonstrated nearly 1 month ago (WP:LISTEN, as usual). The middle ground logical fallacy is very real, I suggest you google it to understand it. Again fail to WP:LISTEN, please read in the comment you just replied to the multiple reasons why your 1940 near equal theory is not only OR but also improbable. "As many other whereabouts could be also taken into account in a 11 year span" -> Last time I checked 1940 - 1930 was 10. And there's no documented migration in that period, the 1930 census is very similar to the 1910, 1919, 1940 and 1948 censuses. Only the 1941 is the odd one. Anyway, unlike your middle ground fallacy, I never said we should use the 1930 census but say "1940" instead, hence your accusation is misplaced. "To say nothing of as well other ethnics declared differently their ethnicity by possible fear" -> Are you aware of the fact that this could have also happened in 1941? Considering the Hungarian massacres at Treznea and Ip is not far-fetched, but you don't usually see your double-standards. I'm not saying cenuses are perfect, but they are better than OR.
These issues have been already discussed and demonstrated nearly 1 month ago, you make the same identical fallacious argumentation you made previously, not learning from your mistakes, and when I give you the same answer (because reality didn't suddenly change) you complain that I repeat the same thing, without even taking a look at yourself, who fails to WP:LISTEN and insists to WP:BLUDGEON while projecting his own faults on other people.
To highlight your flawed style of reasoning, with the exact same words I used 1 month ago, because they are as valid today as they were back then, but you failed to WP:LISTEN: "We don't know exactly who was in majority, the number of them was near equal". So, we don't know exactly, despite having a census? and even if you disagree with the 1940 census for personal reasons, at least you don't disagree with the 1930 census that clearly showed Romanians as the majority in Northern Transylvaia. So, we have a census we both accept that clearly states the Romanians in the majority, and you still don't know who was in the majority? Then you are like: "And because we don't know, let's assume they were near equal, purely based on what I believe." Isn't that a bit convenient? Why is it "near equal" since you previously admited that "we don't know"? which one is it, do you or do you not know? pick one.
Since you keep making the same fallacious accusations that were previously debunked, I can only debunk them again. Let's do it again, this time with Hitchins. "just that is more or less even, which is in comply with the Hitchins quote as well" -> Really? Hitchins may disagree with you. Hitchins said that the 1940 population in Northern Transylvania was 50% Romanians according to Romanian sources and 48% Romanians according to Hungarian sources. He never said that the other 50% and 52% were Hungarians to be 'near equal'. When I told you this, you said that: "No, because the other ethnics are around 10%". When I asked you: "Do you have any source for this 10% claim, or it's OR?". In a typical manner, you failed to provide any source for that 10% claim, being nothing more than empty words. But that wasn't even the best part. The best part was that it is pretty clear even from your own broken OR argument that the Romanians were the majority, with 48% Romanians (your words, Hitchens' Hungarian version) and 10% other ethnicites (also your words, OR), that leaves only 42% Hungarians in the best case scenario of assuming your OR is true and believing Hungarian sources over Romanian sources. Even using your own "logic", your case doesn't make sense.
The fact that we had this discussion and your failed to learn anything, is proof that arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. If anyone has questions or suggestions I'll be glad to answer and discuss. With you, I'm not willing to have the same discussion I prevously had, only for you to make fallacious argumentation, fail to WP:LISTEN, and then spam your previous mistakes, only to act shocked and spam WP:BLUDGEON when you get the same answer. For everyone else, I hope this works as a nice summary of the discussion in the previous RFC. If history repeats itself, the other user will accuse me of fallacious, misleading or selective argumentation or something similar but fail to offer evidence and demonstration why that is the case, it will be more of a declaration and less of an argument, merely an attempt of filibustering, I don't want to play his game anymore. LordRogalDorn (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WALLOFTEXT, poor-styled copy-paste inverted accusations, reiterated fallacius assumptions/deductions, that have been already discussed and disproved in the other page. Very boring, tendentious and disruptive. I won't give you the chance to also continue this nonsense here, all of my reactions, evidence is present in the other talk page (funny you start to deny again I provided a source, which you denied about five times earlier, but after you had to acknowledge it, now you again tell the opposite, thanks for reaffirming WP:COMPETENCE and WP:LISTEN). As well, WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTFORUM, just WP:DROPTHESTICK, I have no interest in your repetitive WP:BLUDGEON-ing.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
For the record, these were already discussed but not disproved in the other page. User KIENGIR simply switched to his typical style of ad hoeminems and false accusations after having nothing else to defend his case with. As predicted in the above comment, he offers no evidence or demonstration to back up his strong accusations, his entire text can be read as a list of complains. He is right, evidence is present in the other talk page, that I summarized here. Also for the record: Now he's saying that not only he provided a source, but I acknowledged it. In fact, he didn't even provide a source after I specifically asked him to [[4]], let alone by his own initiative, can you notice any source mentioned in his response when asked for a source? [[5]]. I never said he provided a source, this is easily verifiable on the other RFC page [[6]], he either misunderstood it or is not telling the truth to get things his way, either way, he's putting words into my mouth, WP:DNTL. Thanks for reaffirming your true colors. LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your blurb again to put on me what in fact what you do will not lead anywhere. I was talking about this [[7]], what you are talking about now has nothing to do with that (I referred to something 1 month ago, as you did also, huh (!)), so this this just again failed. On the other hand, what you incite here is your own invention based on your own fallacy, because you failed to understand what I have written, in fact you started speculative conclusions on your own about things which was not written (too bad for you that every move is verifiable in this platform). Just WP:DROPTHESTICK!(KIENGIR (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
The link you posted leads to one of your diffs, I don't think it takes a genius to realise that you can't accuse me that I said you provided a source using one of your diffs as evidence. The situation is simple: you failed to provide a scholarly source for your "divided more or less evenly" claim and "the other ethnics are around 10%" claim. What you have there is OR and wishful thinking. There is no point beating a dead horse, WP:DROPTHESTICK. LordRogalDorn (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, so you have the bravado to try to explain out yourself with an impossible straw-man argumentation ("divided more or less evenly" or "the other ethnics are around 10%" was not the subject of the issue referred 1 month ago, anyway counting or appropriate interpretation of sources is not to be confused with sourcing). The fact that you acknowledged later I provided a source on the matter, is openly readable at the page (we don't need to copy-paste everything twice/more as you do). At this point, not a surprise how anyone would take you serious as well in the future (after again hilariously copy-pasting what I addressed to you, while wishful thinking is again not my attribute, evidence is present), this is just confirming everything I draw the attention.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
I think it's abundantly clear that you two do not agree. Since neither appears to be on the cusp of a change of mind and this is already way off topic, why not cut this exchange off here? —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Brigade Piron:,
I agree this discussion is useless to be continued. In fact, since the evidence is clear, it is not anymore about mutual changing mind, but serious issues from one side. Support cutoff, I hope at least this will be mutual.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC))[reply]
@Brigade Piron: This discussion was already over when the other user started making the same fallacious arguments that were already discussed and disproved in the other page. I'm aware it's impossible to reason with him due to lack of WP:COMPETENCE and failure to WP:LISTEN. When he made the same accusations he repeatedly makes on other pages, dispite substantial evidence of the opposite being clear for everyone to see, I merely gave him the same reply. Once that was done, there was no reason to play his game of off-topic mirror accusations. LordRogalDorn (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just quote the census figures directly, as I said in the other RfC any parsing or interpretation is rife for original research. Furthermore, splitting hairs over the verbiage associated with the raw figures involves editorial discord and walls of text (^^^^).--Astral Leap (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC) strike sock[reply]
  • Quote the census figures directly GMPX1234 (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

"Hungarian Soviet War" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Hungarian Soviet War has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 12 § Hungarian Soviet War until a consensus is reached.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungary_in_World_War_II&oldid=1202844393"