Talk:Hungary/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

YYYY-MM-DD date format

The YYYY-MM-DD date format is also standard in Hungary.

  • Wikipedia [1]
  • MSZ ISO 8601:2003, Adatelemek és adatcsere-formátumok. Információcsere. A dátumok és az időpontok ábrázolása.
  • A summary of the international standard date and time notation [2]
current field entry:

| date_format =

proposed field entry:

| date_format =

  • yyyy-mm-dd
  • yyyy.mm.dd
  • yyyy.mm.dd (CE)


I gather everyone agrees. Act on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.236.67.158 (talk) 09:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Winter in Hungary

Recently, an editor repeatedly tried to insert 4 pictures about "Winter in Hungary". I have removed these images, since the "Hungary" article is a general, brief *high-level* description of Hungary with only a *very few* selected pictures. These should illustrate some significant events, persons, landmarks, etc., relating to Hungary. Those winter pictures could have been taken anywhere in Europe (or even anywhere in the world where there is winter), so they are not very typical for Hungary. Neither do they illustrate some claims in the article. Therefore, I have removed them, especially since the article has too many images, already. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Finno-Ugric

User Kwamikagami keeps deleting the term "Finno-Ugric" from the article. He only provided his reasons against this term at the talk page of the Hungarian language article. According to this, he thinks that this expression has been largely abandoned. I do not agree with this, according to the best of my knowledge, it is still the mainstream theory. I agree that today "Finno-Ugric" is sometimes used as a synonym of Uralic languages, but precisely speaking, it is only a group of Uralic languages (e.g., [1][2][3][4], etc.). Since, the cited source of the article explicitly talks about Finno-Ugric, we should keep this term, until we can reach a consensus on the talk page of the Hungarian language article. Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This has been the consensus on WP for several years for all Uralic languages. Obviously, the Hungarian language article takes precedence over the country article on language issues. You're welcome to seek to change consensus, but until you do, please stop edit warring against it. — kwami (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Look, you have failed to demonstrate that this term has become obsolete, and you have failed to show that some kind of consensus was reached about this. It is also not clear why do you think that some articles have preferences over other articles. Please, explain, since it is not "obvious" for me. And, please, don't change the terminology of this article which is directly supported by the source, until we sort it out at the Hungarian (or Uralic) language(s) article. There is definitely no consensus about this at the moment. Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:54, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
The country article is about the country. The language article is about the language. Do I really need to explain that?
It's already sorted out. It's you who wants to change the status quo. That's fine, but at least wait for the discussion. — kwami (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Could you show a link about that "WP consensus"? Fakirbakir (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
No, that was years ago. But it can be seen in the stability of the Uralic articles since FU was removed. This article was either an oversight when we did that, or was reverted without being noticed. — kwami (talk) 11:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The "stability" can mean a lot of other things, as well, for example: lack of interested editors. BTW: you were the one who deleted the Finno-Ugric term from the Uralic languages infobox in 2011 [5] and from most WP articles, so it is quite strange that you keep referring to a consensus of several editors. And there is definitely no status quo about this. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I fix up the infoboxes of lots language articles (about 7,000 or so), and there's plenty enough interest for people to have objected to this in 2½ years if I'd misunderstood. And of course there's a status quo: It's like arguing we should keep the spelling "Buda-Pest" in the language article because it's been overlooked and - aha! you've been going around changing it to "Budapest" elsewhere, so your motives are suspect. — kwami (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Not withstanding the fact that you seem unable even to provide a link to this so called consensus that you claimed existed in the past, consensus is not set in stone, it can change over time, and the fact that a number of editors have objected to your edits indicates that what ever consensus you imagined supported your edits no longer exists. --Nug (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

For the interested editors: the issue has been raised on the talk page of the Uralic languages article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 October 2013

The article states that Hungary has a highly developed train system. Many of the trains that Hungary uses are from old Soviet-era cars. Russian inscriptions are clearly seen all throughout many of the older cars. Most of the cars of the trains are older. Many of Hungary's train stations are over a century old and dilapidated. With the exception of the IC Vienna fast trains, Hungary's train network is reminiscent of a developing country in South America. 84.224.96.235 (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. The article currently states that "Hungary has a highly developed road, railway, air and water transport system." The condition of the railway cars is not discussed. Keep in mind that the word "developed" can mean various things; for instance, it can be a synonym for "elaborate", which would have more to do with the number of lines, number of cars, total distance of track, and so on. Please feel free to suggest alternative wording, but make it in terms of a specific proposal, and make sure to include reliable sources. We can't add original research. Rivertorch (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian economy

Could somebody please add that the Hungarian economy is ~5.64% EU spending? I think this is very important. My source is: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/nov/22/eu-budget-spending-contributions-european-union — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.116.175.20 (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Update sport part

"and in swimming the men are fourth most successful overall while the women are eighth most successful overall. (See: List of Olympic medalists in swimming (men). List of Olympic medalists in swimming (women).)" This does not seems to be true according to the wiki links provided. In both list Hungary is at the 5th positions (so bot for men and women). The text should be rewritten accordingly. --Kunadam (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2014

109.231.236.180 (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Kap 7 (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian inventions

This section is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article on a country. I have no doubt that there have been many important inventions made in Hungary but listing them this way looks like an inept attempt to promote the country.

None of the other countries bordering Hungary have such a list, see: Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Ukraine, and Slovenia. I suggest that the list is made into a separate article like Scottish inventions and discoveries with a link from this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think there is anything wrong with having a list. The other articles of the above mentioned bordering countries also highlight their inventions and inventors just not in a form of a list. BTW you forgot to mention Austria. Szaboci (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I will leave it up to you but to my mind having a list of inventions from a particular country looks like rather inept promotion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Because this countries (exc. Austria) had no relevant participation in science and technology, due to the lack of their education system, and they were not really part of Catholic-Protestant Western civilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.104.192 (talk) 06:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Size

This article could be quite interesting yet it is ridiculously long and I don't think any viewer could read it in full length. Wouldn't it be better to trim it down, especially the history section ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 19:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Because our country was more determinant than Bulgaria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.104.192 (talk) 06:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if serious or...Honestly, the article could have a great outlook, but some sections are ridiculously long. I suggest merging and trimming everything in Medieval Hungary, merging the two Communist era subsections and the Football subsection inside Sport for a start. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 14:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Largest non-Indo-European language in Europe

Is it really Hungarian? I think it might actually be Turkish (European part of Turkey + rest of Balkans + Germany, Austria, France...) 161.53.38.197 (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The statement is Reliably Sourced - if you have another source that disputes it, please list it. Otherwise, refrain from personal speculation on the Talk Pages.

Art, Decoration, etc.

The main article only lists FOLK ART. What about other arts?

Within folk art, the traditional Hungarian/Transylvanian peasant home décor of chairs, walls, tables, furniture etc is not mentioned. Nor is mentioned the Parta tradition, of colorful scarves, mufflers, headdresses, wedding accessories.

-- Nor is mentioned any of the non-folk art Hungary is known for. Prints, painting, sculpture, etc etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.160.219.145 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 December 2014

Artists

Hungary has several world noted artists, who are NOT mentioned. Just one example: Evelyn and Josef Domjan, known worldwide for their woodcuts and prints.

i'll leave it to someone who knows, to add a section with more complete information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.160.219.145 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 December 2014


Hungarians during the 1848 Revolution were supported by "all of the Jews of the kingdom"?

I understand the source says this verbatim but can one actually prove that literally every Jewish person in Hungary supported Hungarian territorial autonomy? Destatiforze (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

They got equal rights, so the overwhelming majority of them supported the revolution, but I cannot prove, that every single Jew did that. It's widely accepted as a fact in Hungary, except by the anti-Semites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.132.184.132 (talk • contribs)


Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2015

64.30.121.28 (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Governance

Reference to 'Super majority' is obsolete and should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.107.218 (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Motto

I am a Hungarian and I did not know that we have a motto. The "Cum Deo pro Patria et Libertate" was indeed the motto of Rakoczi's War and is the motto of the Christian Democratic Party, but I would like to see a source for its use as a national motto. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.132.184.132 (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2015

There is an error in the following sentence undrr the Geography heading: Transdanubia, which stretches eastward from the center of the country toward Austria,... Please change "eastward" to "westward" because Austria is to the west, not to the east George Boyer Sydney Australia 1.43.253.51 (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done by another - Arjayay (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2015

86.105.174.14 (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 21:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2015

Please change 'upper-middle-income' to 'high income' because according to the Atlas Method developed by the World Bank Hungary is a high income country. http://data.worldbank.org/country/hungary Krikskraks (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Done Kharkiv07 (T) 18:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Voting system

Hungary never had either pure proportional nor first-past-the-post system, it was always a mix between two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.40.208 (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

MSZP

MSZP a "left-wing" party and Fidesz "conservative"? This is kind of a biased opinion. Would change that. (4.1) 134.245.44.19 (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:03, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2016

Hi, I am a biginner wiki user. I would like to create some semi-protected articles. Please change my status to established registered user, because I don't want to do so huge changes but important "refreshing" and I will be carefull in the case of uploads and editing sources. Gabriellkatona (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gabriellkatona: Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent political events

The following description of recent events has been repeatedly removed; I suggest it should be restored.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hungary. 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) 22:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

What?

"A passion for spa culture and Hungarian history have been connected from the very beginning. " Since the beginning of when? The beginning of last week? Last year? 2601:483:100:CB54:3CD4:5BB9:442B:D476 (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Anthem - Incorrect name

The article shows the Anthem as "Himnusz". The word "Himnusz" means Anthem. For example, the German or English Anthems are referred to in Hungarian as the German (nément) himnusz, or the English (Angol) himusz, where "himnusz" means anthem.

Other country articles seem to provide the name of the Anthem in the "Anthem:" field. If this is so, the name of the Hungarian National Anthem is "Isten Áld Meg a Magyart", which translates to "God Bless the Hungarians".

I would argue that the Anthem on this page should be shown as "God Bless the Hungarians" in its English translation.

Please discuss (hopefully agree).

Pjt-wiki (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit warring and controversial changes

A Hungarian user has repeatedly made massive and undiscussed changes to the articles. Not only is there no consensus for these edits, they are rather poorly written and represent no improvement of the article. Quite the opposite, as it introduces a number of subjective claims into the article. Unfortunately, the attitude of the Hungarian user is that his/her edits are the WP:TRUTH, so the user gladly ignores discussion and just edit wars to keep these controversial changes in. At the very least, I'd appreciate an argument for why these changes should be kept, and for the controversial edits to be reverted until there is a consensus (not to mention an argument) for why they belong here. Jeppiz (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The current situation is not tenable and a prime example of WP:OWN. We have a single purpose account who does not take part in any discussion, and only sweeps in at times to revert without any justification given, let alone any consensus to fundamentally change the article. As it's been four days since my post above, I'm restoring the consensus version prior to the SPA's undiscussed changes. Any further OWN-violations will lead to a report. Jeppiz (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Language

An IP-editor keeps changing the sentence "The official language is Hungarian, which is the most widely spoken non-Indo-European language in Europe." to "The official language is Hungarian, which is the most widely spoken Uralic language in the world.". My problem with this change is that the given source supports the first version only. I would like to ask the editor in question to explain why does he want to change the sentence and, moreover, to provide academic sources for his version. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Hungary. 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) 17:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungary. 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) 05:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungary. 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) 14:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hungary/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 22:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Nothing identified by Earwig's tool.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No edit warring noted.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. No issues noted.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Fine.
7. Overall assessment.
Jclemens' Good Article Review expectations for Vital Articles.
  • This is a vital article. As such, it requires an appropriate amount of scrutiny, because being wrong is just that much worse, so being right is just that much more important.
  • This is a collaborative process. I offer suggestions, which editors are free to implement, ignore, reject, or propose counter-suggestions. If there's simply no meeting of the minds, there will be no GA pass from me, but please feel free to tell me to take a flying leap if I propose something stupid or counterproductive.
  • I do not quick fail vital article GA reviews. In general, even if there is no clear path to meet all the GA criteria, working with conscientious editors is almost always going to improve the article and benefit our readers--just not to the extent all of us had hoped.
  • This is not a quick process. Estimate a month, depending on my availability and the responsiveness of the nominator and other editors collaborating on the process.
  • I am not a content expert. I generally have a reasonable background in the topic under consideration, often at the college undergraduate/survey level, or else I wouldn't have volunteered to review it. Thus, I depend on the content experts to help focus the article appropriately.
  • The more the merrier. While many unimportant GA articles can be adequately reviewed by a single nominator and a single reviewer, Vital Article GA's can use more eyes, based on their increased importance. I always welcome other editors to jump in with suggestions and constructive criticisms.

First Impressions and Read-Through

  • There are a lot of long wikilinks in the lead. The blue/black ratio seems a bit off.
  • More importantly, the lead doesn't adequately summarize the rest of the article. It emphasizes history and current economy, while giving perhaps a sentence to arts and culture.

Textual notes

  • "The vast majority of the seventeen and nineteen thousand Ottoman soldiers in service in the Ottoman fortresses" Is there a 'between' missing there?
  • I wikilinked Akinjis.
  • "...the Hungarians were supported by the vast majority of the Slovak, German and Rusyn nationalities ..." Russian?
  • In the Political Parties section, the second paragraph spends too much time on history; move those parts back up into the historical section, please?
  • Look for overlinking throughout, e.g. court need not be wikilinked anywhere.
  • "... the gendarmerie-like, militarised "Készenléti Rendőrség" (Operational Police) mainly dealing with riots and often enforcing local police forces." by enforcing, do we mean 'reinforcing' or 'policing'?

(still working...) Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

The drive-by nom didn't edit after nominating this, so your call: did you want to continue noting some things in hopes someone picks it up or should it just be failed? Wizardman 16:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I've gotten pinged on this on my talk page recently, and with my last paper due tomorrow, I promised I'd get to it this week. Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Editors participating

  • Is there anyone (BlueMoonset, Kpalion?) still willing to take and act upon new feedback? I agree with Wizardman that our nominator is gone for nearly six months now. Who's still interested in acting on feedback? Jclemens (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I've never expressed a willingness to take or act upon new feedback, and have no plans to do so. My interest was to get some sort of action on the longest-running GA review, which had been open for over four and a half months at the time. You might want to see whether there are any editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary who would be interested in working through any issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Given that no editor has stepped forward in two weeks, I am closing this GA review as stale, without prejudice against renomination. Jclemens (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungary. 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) 18:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2018

Nominal GDP of Hungary for 2018 $144.307 billion US dollar in the IMF report stated. 198.208.27.74 (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungary. 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) 16:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Religion section

The only relevant data are those from the census (total population survey). Surveys of 1000 people like Pew 2015 are not reliable. Keep the page as it was until 21 January 2018: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungary&oldid=821617845 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.27.178.183 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

National assembly / Országgyűlés

Stop the edit warring over how the National Assembly, or Országgyűlés, should be referred to in the article, and discuss your proposals and arguments pro and con here. Mathglot (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

The vandal user is not able to accept the facts given sources. Alias: 92.13.49.216 or Fisoz92. Copying a 2011 census data when another census shows that the number of Gypsies is greater than what he copied. Thus, the ethnic percentages have changed.--InterCity(IC) (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

When reliable sources disagree, the usual solution is to give both figures or neither. DrKay (talk) 11:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
InterCity(IC) has been temporarily blocked for edit warring. Every Wikipedia editor needs to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus instead of edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources for Ethnic groups

Would people please list wp:reliable sources for ethnic groups are here? As there seems to be considerable disagreement and discrepancy, likely a range should be added to the article. Here are the current sources that are on the page as far as I see. Are they RS?

Jim1138 (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Ennyi_roma_el_Magyarorszagon = A total of that number of Roma living in Hungary. Its correct

in Hungary During the Last Decades

Dual ethnic identity in Hungary

The Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH) released the detailed ethnic data of the 2016 microcensus. The sum of the share of ethnic groups exceeds 100% due to the Hungarian census methodology. In Hungary people can declare two ethnicities (for example: a person born to a Hungarian father and a German mother and she/he can declare Hungarian and German ethnicity together), that's why the sum is higher than the total population. This was introduced in 2001 (census) and used in 2011 (census) and 2016 (microcensus) also (the sum of the current 2011 data also exceeds 100%). This new methodology highly increased the number of people declaring a minority identity, while the share of Hungarians remained high. According to the 2016 data, large majority of people belonging to an ethnic minority declaring Hungarian ethnic identity also, moreover, they mostly declaring Hungarian first and than a minority one secondly. This is most common among the Romani people, 99.1% (first document, page 24) of the Romani declared Hungarian ethnic identity also (they are predominantly Hungarian by language and culture). You can find the publication of ethnic data here (you can find the table in page 9, ethnic groups in the last column "nemzetiséghez tartozók összesen") and the detailed tables here (in Hungarian). You can find the methodology in the first document (unfortunately only in Hungarian). I think the 2011 data should be replaced by the more recent 2016 data.--Rovibroni (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Minor mistake

Hello! I read this article today, and in the following sentence I noticed a mistake: "The uprisings lasted for years. After 8 years of war with the Habsburg Empire, the Hungarian Kuruc army lost the last main battle at Trencsén (1708)." If I remember well, there was war for 8 years between 1703 and 1711. The war was going on for some years after the main rebel defeat. The surrender is what was "after 8 years", not that battle. Plus the irregular rebel forces tended to avoid open battles, so there weren't many "main battles" apart from this one. I suggest the following: "The uprisings lasted for years. The Hungarian Kuruc army, although took over most of the country, lost the main battle at Trencsén (1708). Thus, after 8 years of war, the Kuruc forces surrendered." I don't want to edit this, until someone competent agrees to it. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.66.232.152 (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Minor mistake

I am sure that the phrase " tuition-free secondary education." in the 4th paragraph of the article's introduction is a mistake. I suggest " free secondary education." instead. Cpedw (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

WITHDRAWN
Out-of-process nomination has been withdrawn by nominator; closing review and marking as not listed. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hungary/GA4. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nemo bis (talk · contribs) 14:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • The article does not satisfy good article criteria, in particular WP:NPOV, due to WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND issues with some of the editors most active on the page, who pushed specific views of what should be allowed to be on the article against many contributions by others (example) and ignoring talk page discussion. Nemo 14:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The non-religious are treated as inferior by the Hungarian state, but Wikipedia is not the Hungarian state

  • The non-religious should appear higher, because they are more than other groups.
  • Christians have been analyzed into Catholics, Protestants; do the same with the "non-reigious" subcategories: atheists, agnostics, religiously indifferent and other (other is problematic, because some consider it a different category; some claim that are many sub-others which tendencies towards different specifics. Do the basics and debate for the minor issues.


The common hypernym of religion and atheism is metaphysical worldview.

If you're biased and you claim that religion is the hypernym of itself, and any other possible opinion is religion or religious; other options would falsely appear subhuman, simple due to bad labeling.

You cannot blame the Hungarian state, for the mistakes of presentation within Wikipedia. You should blame Wikipedia for the presentation. One can use the data, but Wikipedia doesn't belong to the Hungarian state; thus the order of the presentation and the titles, can be more respectful towards the human rights and the right to maintain a personal opinion on metaphysics which might be or not also a worldview (some people only focus on worldviews and not metaphysics; thus we need a wide hypernym; all hypernyms create non-somethings, nones, people who don't apply to the hypernym. A wisely selected hypernym, produces less nones. An atheist is a non / non-theist according to the survey hypernym "religion", but certainly not a non according to the survey hypernym "metaphysical worldview". A religiously indifferent might be again a non, or an other because he/she might self-ascribe to a rare or personal worldview.

Do your best. Christian biasing isn't your best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.235.106.231 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2020

change the population rank to 91th (more details : wikipedia page " List of countries and dependencies by population " at the 91th country) Lapingenieur (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: "91th" sounded odd, so I changed the rank to "91st" in this edit instead. –ToxiBoi! (contribs) 04:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

93.107.0.104 (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I was at hungry last week and i would like to add facts.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong year for census information

Not sure why but the census data is from 2011 not 2013 (as stated on the page)...on the source it does not have data for 2013...was just released in 2013.--Moxy 🍁 12:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

It clearly states in the page with every link to the religion stats "Frissítve: 2013.07.17" transl: Updated: 17 July 2013. That's updated not released. In comparison with the old stats for 2011, these are different. I updated the WP article with the newer stats, and referenced the newer date in the cited source as required by WP policy. Don't keep changing it; you've been reverted once already, now twice, and it's verging on edit warring. As I told you on your Talk page, the dates in the article for the source MUST match the date of the source itself, and that includes any updates. I've itemized my edits in detail in my edit summaries, and stated all this there repeatedly. Also, if you're using an old source, it is obsolete and you should be using the newest source. The source I have used is the Hungarian government's official State Census Bureau. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
OK perhaps best to get someone else to explain WP:Dispute resolution. ....no census in 2013....data from 2011 updates in 2013 there is no column for 2013 in the link that did not change. Restoring stable version till you get consensus for the changes as per WP:BRD. As of now your edit Waring with multiple editors. ....last warning WP:3RV. You have not addressed the concerns raised.....map no good as linked in your talk page,,,,borders are wrong and map is not legible at any resolution... ....data has wrong date as anyone can see that there is no column for 2013. Not worth getting blocked...can you read the data? --Moxy 🍁 21:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

1.1.7.1 A népesség vallás, felekezet és nemek szerint

Vallás 1930 1949 2001 2011

Férfi Katolikus 2 841 590 3 110 489 2 563 758 1 753 565 Ebből: római katolikus 2 742 062 2 989 159 2 437 104 1 670 084 görög katolikus 99 528 121 330 126 395 82 807 Ortodox keresztény 21 470 18 173 6 580 6 213 Református 899 075 982 473 747 376 519 968 Evangélikus 263 134 230 825 137 765 95 493 Izraelita 212 837 58 141 5 868 5 471 Más vallási közösséghez, felekezethez tartozó 9 294 16 524 42 087 77 750 Vallási közösséghez, felekezethez nem tartozó 1 052 6 795 786 433 938 803 Nem kívánt válaszolni, nincs válasz – – 560 783 1 321 216 Összesen 4 248 452 4 423 420 4 850 650 4 718 479 Nő Katolikus 2 990 648 3 378 266 2 995 203 2 118 357 Ebből: római katolikus 2 889 084 3 251 240 2 852 417 2 021 305 görög katolikus 101 564 127 026 142 540 96 369 Ortodox keresztény 18 369 17 842 7 940 7 497 Református 914 069 1 032 245 875 420 633 486 Evangélikus 270 712 251 332 166 940 119 600 Izraelita 231 715 75 720 7 003 5 494 Más vallási közösséghez, felekezethez tartozó 10 237 20 482 54 673 89 481 Vallási közösséghez, felekezethez nem tartozó 907 5 492 696 936 867 606 Nem kívánt válaszolni, nincs válasz – – 543 550 1 377 628 Összesen 4 436 657 4 781 379 5 347 665 5 219 149 Összesen Katolikus 5 832 238 6 488 755 5 558 961 3 871 922 Ebből: római katolikus 5 631 146 6 240 399 5 289 521 3 691 389 görög katolikus 201 092 248 356 268 935 179 176 Ortodox keresztény 39 839 36 015 14 520 13 710 Református 1 813 144 2 014 718 1 622 796 1 153 454 Evangélikus 533 846 482 157 304 705 215 093 Izraelita 444 552 133 861 12 871 10 965 Más vallási közösséghez, felekezethez tartozó 19 531 37 006 96 760 167 231 Vallási közösséghez, felekezethez nem tartozó 1 959 12 287 1 483 369 1 806 409 Nem kívánt válaszolni, nincs válasz – – 1 104 333 2 698 844 Összesen 8 685 109 9 204 799 10 198 315 9 937 628

Pit of vipers?

I hope I haven't fallen into a pit of vipers here. I made some corrections, removed some biased edits that violate WP policy, and with my edits, made sure they were accurate with the cited sources, and that the sources were WP:RS. One user who has made some good cosmetic corrections recently, and with whom I was calmly discussing this article on his talk page, appears to have suddenly flipped out and mass reverted several dozen edits of several people including his own (and mine). I am just now noticing the history with this article in its talk page here and boy does it look scary!

Seems like there's a history of tendentious editing and verbally violent behavior and other devious nastiness, even to the point where the committee who votes on Good Article (GA) status nominations just basically said "are you kidding me?!" to us, and laughed us and our article off as a lost and hopeless cause, just because we can't get our collective s**t together and edit this thing properly and according to WP rules and guidelines, and make this a better article. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Page locked up ...dont want to see you get block as you seem to be trying ...just not hearing.--Moxy 🍁 22:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Map

@LisztianEndeavors: Could you explain what prompted you to change the infobox map that seems to have been perfectly fine before to this new one? Seems to be lower res and creating issues. KREOH (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Just not getting a reply from them anymore....best we just restore the article till they have the ability to read sources and linked RFC,s.--Moxy 🍁 15:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hungarian Spectrum

There is an ongoing debate on the deletion of the article Hungarian Spectrum. The discussion is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hungarian_Spectrum . I left a message on the Wikipedia Hungary project talk page, but I have the impression that it does not function. Could you please notify other editors, regardless their political opinion. Thanks, I was 835.--84.224.163.158 (talk) 18:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I started randomly ping editors from Wikiprojext Hungary, but then realized that it is easier here to find active editors.--84.224.163.158 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Religion in infobox

There is an edit war going on regarding religion, and I think it has resulted in confusing and misleading information in the infobox. This is approximately the current formatting in the infobox (with the confusing part in bold):
Catholicism (39.0%):

37.1% Roman
1.8% Hungarian Greek
0.1% Eastern Orthodox

Protestantism (13.8%):

11.6% Hungarian Reformed
2.2% Lutheranism

Other religion (1.8%):

0.1% Judaism
1.7% Buddhism, Islam, other

Non-religious (45.4%):

18.2% irreligion, Atheism
27.2% undeclared, Agnosticism

Before you disagree with me, look at where the links take you. Catholicism links to "Catholic Church", which commonly refers to Roman Catholic Church. "Eastern Orthodox" links to Eastern Orthodox Church . I realize that the Eastern Orthodox Church also goes by the name "Orthodox Catholic Church". But it is NOT part of the Roman Catholic Church, as the formatting and links suggest.

The proper formatting should be:
Catholicism (39.0%):

37.1% Roman
1.8% Hungarian Greek

Eastern Orthodox (0.1%)
Protestantism (13.8%):

11.6% Hungarian Reformed
2.2% Lutheranism

Other religion (1.8%):

0.1% Judaism
1.7% Buddhism, Islam, other

Non-religious (45.4%):

18.2% irreligion, Atheism
27.2% undeclared, Agnosticism

That makes it clear that Eastern Orthodox is not part of the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not arguing the question of whether the Eastern Orthodox Church is part of the generic catholic church. But it certainly isn't part of the church in this link: Catholicism. I personally prefer simply linking to Religion in Hungary, but if the details are included, clear up the misleading formatting.

In addition to settling differences without edit warring, please come to some agreement about how to avoid the confusion. Sundayclose (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

There's no edit war over this. It's just a link pointing to the wrong page. My mistake. Your point is taken and you're right. If the article wasn't locked up, I'd fix this for you or you could. I don't agree with removing Eastern Orthodox from the Catholic subheading; we just need to find an article about Catholicism in general not specifically Roman. For the record, do you know of such an article? You could ask the Admin User:CambridgeBayWeather to redirect the link for us, since it's not controversial or in dispute nor involved in the ANI complaint against Moxy or his bogus Dispute. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the more I research, the more confused I get. There doesn't seem to be an all-encompassing article on Catholicism. Is the Eastern Orthodox Church protestant by any chance? Like the Church of England (Anglican) (what is called Episcopalian in the US) broke away from Roman Catholicism because they didn't agree with papal supremacy, so they were (and are) Protestant but also Catholic all the same. The Eastern Orthodox Church broke away from the Roman Church for the same reason around the time of the reformation when the Protestants split off too (Calvinists and Lutherans). Have I got that right? If so, then Eastern Orthodox would be moved to under the subheading Protestant. Or else it would be in a third category by itself. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
We could also just leave it where it is under Catholicism and remove the Catholicism link altogether, leaving it just as text. There's also a "Catholic Church" disambiguation page that covers everything. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 00:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
If you think you're confused imagine the confusion of a reader who doesn't know much about RCC and EOC. But I disagree with the approach of a generic catholic heading (even if there was an article). It still creates confusion because of confusion in the meaning of the term "catholic". Instead, if you prefer, use "Eastern Orthodox (Orthodox Catholic) Church" to indicate their catholic identity. Then there is no confusion. Wikipedia is written for the general reader, not people already well-versed in the terminology. People who already understand the RCC-EOC distinction don't need the information, and others don't need to be confused by the terminology.
Alternatively, there could be a major "Christianity" heading with RCC, EOC, etc. subheadings.
But all of this can be avoided by simply using the method use in many country articles, just link Religion in Hungary.
So my choices in order of preference:
  • link to Religion in Hungary
  • Combine Roman and Hungarian Greek Catholic into simply [[Catholic Church|Catholic]], and then EOC etc.
  • my suggested formatting above
  • "Christian" heading with subheadings
  • use "Eastern Orthodox (Orthodox Catholic) Church".
But not EOC and RCC under a heading "Catholic". Sundayclose (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
A Religion in Hungary link would have to include Protestants then, which is the same as a general link to Christianity. The purpose of the statistics in the infobox (which have to be duplicated in the text too as those stats already are), are to break down the percentage of Catholics separately from Protestants. I'm thinking having EOC a separate category, not Catholic or Protestant, is best (and adding the part with parentheses won't fit in the infobox but will in the text). On the other hand, maybe just dispense with the 2 subheadings Catholic and Protestant, and lump all the religions together, but in the same order. How's that for a compromise? LisztianEndeavors (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand. Religion in Hungary does have information about Protestantism. Anyway, an infobox needs to be succinct. We don't need the details about percentages. Anyone interested in those detail can read the article's section on religion, as well as Religion in Hungary. That's the way it is for many articles, and it works fine. Sundayclose (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
The Admin has already made the change according to your suggestion in your first post. It solves the problem. It looks good now: Eastern Orthodox is in its own category, as it should be.
As for infoboxes in general, they are for basic data at a glance. They shouldn't merely refer the reader to the main text. If you see such referrals in an infobox on other articles, they need to be changed. The basic data in this case shows the breakdown of religions in percent of population. That's a basic statistic. That's all you need. But we can't do it half-assed. We don't want to hide information from readers; that would be unnecessarily deceptive and could be considered to be a violation of WP:NPOV among other ongoing "controversial" problems with this article. We needn't get into that here.
Only one more thing to correct here, the math: User:CambridgeBayWeather would you change the precentage of Catholicism from 39.0% to 38.9% thank you. (I'm an accountant; gotta have accuracy wherever I go :-) LisztianEndeavors (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I can live with the way it is currently, but I continue to disagree about the need for such detail in the infobox, or the need to change other articles. Sundayclose (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

The maths in the infobox seem to be wrong as the percentages don't add up; they go over 100% for the macro sense and in the micro sense, that is the various Christian denominations, they go over the stated percentage for the total percentage of Christians if you add up all the denominations. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Country's Government

Is it fair to call them a parliamentary republic now that their fascist dictator can suspend elections indefinitely? can I get consensus on this? PresidenteGonzalo (talk) 00:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

No, you cannot. Borsoka (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
@PresidenteGonzalo:,
please try to adhere a little bit to the facts, and not to some fake news and propaganda labelings. Hungary does not have any fascist disctator, and the elections have been suspended by the Parliament (one passus among the other passus's of the emergency laws), that may be revoked any time by the Parliament.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC))
Hey KIENGIR, Hungary is becoming a personalist dictatorship... Viktor Orban ordered the suspension of elections and will rule by decree until his death. The state of emergency is permanent.
Dear IP, please try to seek authentic information, instead of ridiculous remarks.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC))

Despite some of the hyperbole, some mention of the country's democratic backsliding (which has been documented in WP:RS) probably should be included in the lead section (probably in the last paragraph or two), as has been done for the articles of other countries in a comparable situation (i.e. Serbia's). Best, – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure. For instance, the article about the European Union does not mention critical views about the community in the lede. Taking into account that one of the oldest democracies in the world has just left the EU, this silence is quite strange. Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
This discussion does not concern "critical views", but the situation of Hungary's political system, and whether it still qualifies as a full democracy, or if restricting qualifiers on its status as a democratic country are required. On a side note, the article about the European Union does mention Great Britain's exit, but from a neutral point of view. The same would apply to any possible mention of anti-democratic developments in recent Hungarian history that lead to the country's status as a full democracy being disputed. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
The situation you claim the discussion concerns cannot be detached from critical views, since the most of it consists of criticism and POV issues indeed. Anyway those so-called views on situation are presented in the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC))

WP:NOR

Anon, I know that there are people who are convinced that a dictatorship has just been introduced in Hungary. I have also met people who think that the World is flat. Even more surprisingly, there are people who regularly watch Hír TV. However, we editors are required to apply well-established community rules, because WP is not a dictatorship. Please read the five pillars of Wikipedia before editing. Sorry, but pushing this dictatorship slogan is hilarious. Borsoka (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply:

"An autocracy is a system of government in which a single person or party possesses supreme and absolute power."

He has the power to suspend parliament and elections indefinetly, and can arrest anyone for "fake news" which since he has no accountability, he can define to mean anything. In what way is that not a dictatorship. As well, are you affiliated with any pro orban or just in general, far right populist (or white identitarian or whatever you guys call fascism today) organizations.

PresidenteGonzalo (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

@PresidenteGonzalo:
Again, not he has the power, not he can arrest, please do not confuse the Prime Minister with the Parliament or other authorities. Futhermore please don't not accuse other editors with several labels, just because they are neutral and factual, contrary to you. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC))
No, I am not affiliated with pro-Orban organizations. I am not a far right or far left populist, white or black identitarian, Marxist, Leninist, Trotskist either. So I am not a fan of any type of inhuman, antidemocratic, totalitarian regimes. Borsoka (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
To quote Freedom House:

Over the last decade, the right-wing alliance of Fidesz and Christian Democratic People’s Party (KDNP), which won a two-thirds parliamentary majority in 2010, 2014, and 2018, has gradually undermined the rule of law in Hungary and established tight control over the country’s independent institutions. After adopting a new constitution, the ruling coalition fundamentally changed the electoral laws and system of campaign financing; it has also captured the public media and taken control over large segments of private media through an extensive network of government-friendly oligarchs. These developments grant Fidesz-KDNP an extraordinary advantage over the opposition. Consequently, Hungary today can no longer be regarded as a democracy but belongs to the growing group of hybrid regimes, sitting in the “gray zone” between democracies and pure autocracies.

— Freedom House, [7]
Even from a neutral, factual point of view, such qualifications on Hungary's political system and its status as a democracy may have to be included in the near future, as the current administration shows no sign of reversing the anti-democratic measures it has put into effect. Nevertheless, disputing the neutrality of other editors because they have differing opinions goes against WP:PA. TucanHolmes (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
They are included, though your remark about the current administration & anti-democratic measures seems quite POV.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC))
Why? TucanHolmes (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
First, specify what you consider anti-democratic.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC))
See the above passage from the "Nations in Transit" report. Anti-democratic measures are the policies mentioned there (which are themselves only an excerpt). Would you consider these policies to be beneficial to a democracy? TucanHolmes (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Here is an opinion from a Hungarian legal scholar. The article mentions that the law is unlikely to be revoked, and if no sufficient majority (two-thirds) is found, can not be revoked. It also mentions the actions the EU might take because Hungary violated several EU treaties regarding basic EU values / democratic standards with its most recent political changes. And here is a historical example for context, with a very similar legal situation. That is why many scholars argue that the administration shows no sign of reversing its anti-democratic measures, and why it probably won't reverse them. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
And yes, I am aware of my sin. xD TucanHolmes (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I asked your opinion, not to link articles, news, opinions necessarily I know. The case you referred was pumped up as a huge political balloon by the Hungarian opposition, but it will soon laughted fit to burst since everything has been made in respect of all democratic rules, as not even th EU could infer any violation of any law. Your last sentence is a speculation, and democacy means the majority decides, if two-thirds, then two-thirds. In 2022, new democratic elections will be, if it won't be held because your prophecy would be i.e. fulfilled, then I'll start to concern :) (KIENGIR (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC))
I agree that we still need to see how this turns out. As I have mentioned above, we may have to describe its political system differently in the near future. The lead section of the Russia Wikipedia article is a great example for this: The country is primarily described as a republic, the political domination and the authoritarian nature of Putin is mentioned, but there is a sentence about the country's leader maintaining that it's still a democracy. As for elections, they're not a good indicator for a functioning democracy. Many authoritarian nations have elections (or call themselves democratic, e.g. the DRC or the Democratic Republic of North Korea), that doesn't make them a democracy. TucanHolmes (talk) 09:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
We will see what will happen in the future, however any comparison with Russia or North Korea - DRC leads to a disambiguation page, I don't know exactly what you wanted to refer - is ridiculous, and I did not say only elections would be the "good indicator" for a functioning democracy.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC))
This was of course not meant to be a comparison, just an example for why mere democratic processes/bodies (elections, parliament, ...) don't necessarily imply that a country is a democracy, as you referenced the question of whether democratic elections will be held. DRC is the Democratic Republic of the Congo. TucanHolmes (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I just told my opinion, given/meant the situation here of course.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC))

Reply: He has, however, the rigth to rule with decree now. The bill gives hime these powers indefinitely as he does not need parliament to extend the duration of the state of emergency and given extreme dominance of the Fidesz party in hungarian politics, as well as the overwhelmingly dominant position of Orbán in the Fidesz party and his authoritarian tendencies, the chance he is rescinding much of the dictatorial powers he has just assumed is slim. The step was already condemned by multiple Members of the European Parliament, as well as world leaders. Changing nothing on this page to reflect this event's huge impact on the hungarian political system makes this community look biased and unfactual. It's too early to put the government system as something like "de facto dictatorship", as this would be pure speculation on what happens after covid, but at least we should add "suspended indefinitely due to state of emergency" or just put the governmet system as "state of emergency" as of now. As of right now, with Orbàn being able to pass laws without the approval of the parliament, as well as being able to extend the state of emergency without the approval of the parliament, pretending like everything is normal gives this page the stench of being unfactual. Decentralized Centrality (talk) 12:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

As soon as you can prove that a significant part of academic sources regard Hungary as a dictatorship, you can change it. Could we also call France a dictatorship because we are personally convinced that a permanent "state of emergency" is incompatible with democracy? Or could we refer to Spain as an antidemocratic regime, because Spanish authorities prevented the implementation of a plebiscite held in Catalonia? Nobody says that everything is normal in Hungary: there is a pandemic and an emergency situation. Borsoka (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
This [8] articles cites a number of high-ranking european and american government officials and NGOs voicing their concern about the powergrab and it's negative effect on the political system in Hungary. You seem to engage in a strawman discussion, that I want the description changed to dictatorship, which I, as I laid out, do now want as it is far too early to tell. Ignoring this bill on the Politics section of the article is absurd though. This bill gives a prime Minister the right to rule by decree without parliament and without a time limit to these powers. This is so extraordanary and beyond the typical limits of european politics that this has to be mentioned, if Wikipedia wants to keep it's factual and neutral nature. The secretary general of the Council of Europe has also called into question the compatibality of the bill with democratic values in an open letter [9]. These numerous concerns a about the state of democracy in Hungary from multiple high ranking officials of European states, the EU, NGOs and international organizations, that Hungary is a part of, are currently ignored on this page, making it one-sided.Decentralized Centrality (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Do you really think recently published articles in newspapers and politicians' declarations are enough to state that a state developed into a dictatorship? I explicitly referred to academic works above. Borsoka (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
You are again engaging in the same strawman discussion. These comments are so numerous and come from such prominent politicans, that they alone warrant a mention in the articles. You prove again that you are not discussing this matter in good faith, but just choose to ignore sources and arguments that do not fit your own narrative.86.56.1.99 (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
When did I say that we could not present relevant PoVs? Borsoka (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree that until there is overwhelming evidence in the form of credible sources, the model of government of Hungary can not be changed in this article. Newspaper articles are not enough. That said - it is absolutely correct to list opinions from international media and organizations about any decisions made by the Hungarian parliament that are notable enough. This includes the bill in question. A correct location for this would be a sub-paragraph in the article. The content in this article has to be neutral. Hence, if there are notable (credible) sources either criticising or supporting the bill, both should be included. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
@Blomsterhagens:, I think we should summarize the legislation as neutrally and as professionally as we can. Of course, if relevant reliable sources state that Viktor Orbán wants to abuse his powers, we can summarize their views, but we cannot present PoVs as facts. Borsoka (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Despite some of the hyperbole, some mention of the country's democratic backsliding (which has been documented in WP:RS) probably should be included in the lead section of the article (maybe in the last paragraph or two), as has been done for other countries' articles (like Serbia's). In this regard, I agree with Blomsterhagens' suggestion above. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 11:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the abuse of powers, this article lists some examples. TucanHolmes (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Though it's a POV, these views/concerns are already mentioned in the article.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC))

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Related_standards"
  2. ^ http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-time.html
  3. ^ The New Press and Media Act in Hungary (concerning the December 2010 law), by Kai Ekholm and Tarja Svärd-Ylilehto. ifla.org, 5 October 2012. Retrieved 14 May 2015.
  4. ^ "Texts adopted - Wednesday, 3 July 2013 - Situation of fundamental rights: standards and practices in Hungary - P7_TA(2013)0315".
  5. ^ Specifically OHCHR, "the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media and the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, as well [...] the Secretary General of the Council of Europe, the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion of right to freedom of opinion and expression",
  6. ^ Report on the situation of fundamental rights: standards and practices in Hungary, European Parliament June 19,, 2013
  7. ^ https://freedomhouse.org/country/hungary/nations-transit/2020
  8. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/31/hungary-emergency-law-incompatible-with-being-in-eu-say-meps-group-viktor-orban
  9. ^ https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/secretary-general-writes-to-victor-orban-regarding-covid-19-state-of-emergency-in-hungary

Parliament

@KIENGIR: Why was my edit regarding the legislature reverted? The page had outdated figures from 2018, which have been updated. KDNP has a Fidesz-colour outline on the diagram, as it forms a part of the Fidesz-KDNP parliamentary group despite being a different party. The same diagram is used on National Assembly (Hungary). MatryoshkaNL (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@MatryoshkaNL:,
You may update old data, but you should not represent data concering the Fidesz-KDNP alliance, jut and only what goes to Fidesz, since Fidesz, KDNP and the Fidesz-KDNP alliance are treated in separate articles, respectively.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC))

Election system

The article says Hungary has a "first past the post" electoral system for its 199 MPs, with a 5% election threshold. As far as I know, the electoral system is actually mixed - there's a first past the post system for only 106 of the MPs, and the other 93 are elected from party lists. The 5% threshold only applies to the party lists. Could this be changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.95.69.234 (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2020

Use the phrase Eastern-Central Europe instead of Central Europe 2A02:AB88:24BC:8D00:C40F:C19E:12C7:4288 (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

×== Orban in lead section ==

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungary&type=revision&diff=983711563&oldid=983534913

I recently made edits to the lead section of this article mentioning Hungary's current Prime Minister Viktor Orban and how his leadership has been concurrent with democratic backsliding in the country. It was undone by User:KIENGIR. A discussion with the user over the edit can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KIENGIR#Concerning_your_edit_here:

So what do you think? Is Orban and his illiberal policies significant enough to be mentioned in the lead under MOS:LEAD, which mentions that "[A lead section] should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies"? Do you believe that there credible commentary by independent sources confirming or denying that Orban is contributing to democratic backsliding which make it misleading to simply say that "On 23 October 1989, Hungary became a democratic parliamentary republic" as it currently says? Why or why not? DeathTrain (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Per our discussion as well,
political shoapboxing of controversial issues are not welcome in the lead, and we cannot represent opinion/crticism as facts. The controversial Freedom House report is already available in the Government and politics section, which is appropriate for such material. I also mentioned the Poland article in which the same report was opposed and was removed from the article, I could do the same here, but I did not, so nobody could say I am not treating this issue in a fair way. Since 1989, many things happened in the political life, even more controversial issues or problems, highlighting one politician is utterly inappropriate, as the lead is as well not suitable discussing all controversial issues with pro-and contra opinions. This page is about Hungary, not a party, government or anything else.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2020 (UTC))
Yes, Freedom House's report is controversial. "Democratic backsliding" is a label that could hardly describe political development in the country. Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Lead prose not the place to mention anyone..not even Hiter. ....best follow FA level examples of how best to write a lead... Germany Europe. ... Canada North America. ...Japan Asia....Cameroon Africa. Simple facts about the country lIke leaders should already be covered in the lead infobox with no qualifier.--Moxy 🍁 02:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: I don't know if you have realized this, but Paul Biya, Cameroon's longtime leader is already mentioned in the lead section of the Cameroon article. Similarly, Hitler is mentioned several times in the lead section of Nazi Germany. The Hungary article even mentions historical leaders like Árpád and Stephen I. The reason why Hitler is not mentioned in the current Germany article by name is because the Nazi regime, as well as its seizure of power, the Holocaust, and World War II are already mentioned in the Germany article. Under the interpretation of MOS:LEAD, that "Lead prose not the place to mention anyone..not even Hiter", does that mean that mentions of leaders in lead sections like Erdogan in Turkey, Lukashenko in Belarus, Chavez and Maduro in Venezuela, or Mugabe and Mnangagwa in Zimbabwe are also inappropriate? DeathTrain (talk) 14:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes....no need to mention people 2 times in the lead of articles that cover thousands of years.--Moxy 🍁 14:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: So do you think that it is necessary to remove mentions of Árpád and Stephen I from this article as they are not significant enough? Do you believe that no one individual should be mentioned in the lead section of any country? DeathTrain (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
In my view should be no need to mention any one person in the lead. Lead is for broad coverage. So mention Government types be it a monarch, a regime, totalitarianism or Cult of Personality etc...these terms when linked will lead readers to information about the structure of a country...over a bio link that should be seen in the relevant section be it history or government.....that in most cases will lead to an article about a specific time in history for a country....that can mention the most historical people of that time period because of the focus of the sub article.That said there are articles where consensus has be made to include an individual like at the United Kingdom because of the historical custom of kingship. I personally think we see mention of individuals in the lead mostly in a negative context with multiple sentences to explain a timeframe that may have lasted only 30 years. This results in the tone of the lead to be negative and time specific despite the huge time frame of history. Even the newest countries because of their historical place in history. In my view an article like North Korea is missing thousands of years of territorial and cultural history leadin our readers lost as to its historical place in the world.... who originally populated the lands... what customs did they adhere to prior to 1910....etc.--Moxy 🍁 20:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Moxy: Do you believe in any exceptions to this? Should Árpád and Stephen I also be removed from the lead section? If you believe that this is a site-wide issue, and that no country should have an individual named in the lead section without exception, maybe a discussion should be made at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries. DeathTrain (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Árpád could be removed, because we do not have any reliable information about him. However, how can one make a comparison between Stephen I (who is known as the founder of the state) and Orban (who is one of the dozens PMs)??? Should we mention all towns, villages, industries in the lead? Borsoka (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Borsoka: How does that prove anything? Orban has been in power for more than a decade, longer than any other post-communist Prime Minister and under his leadership, very significant things have happened, notably the shift to illiberalism which impacts how it is currently mentioned that "[In] 1989, Hungary became a democratic parliamentary republic." He is also likely to remain in power until at least 2022, unless he dies, resigns or is removed before then. Also, he is currently the second-longest serving Prime Minister in Hungarian history, (granted, his first term was non-consecutive), and will likely overtake the current longest serving PM, Kálmán Tisza by the end of the year. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Hungary_by_tenure) Similarly, the article already mentions that "Hungary's capital and largest city is Budapest; other major urban areas include Debrecen, Szeged, Miskolc, Pécs, and Győr." How can you compare Orban to so many other less significant Prime Ministers? Not all Prime Ministers have the same impact on a country; some are only in power for less than a year. So really, the question is: "Why is Orban not significant enough to be mentioned in the lead?" DeathTrain (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I add my voice to the general consensus not to include Orban in the lead, in line with the arguments expressed by Moxy, Borsoka and KIENGIR. We don't normally mention PMs in leads, nor is there any reason to do so here. I also strongly encourage DeathTrain to WP:DROPTHESTICK. All the whataboutism above is highly unimpressive. Jeppiz (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: What would be required for him to be mentioned then? It seems to me that the arguments used to not include Orban throughout this discussion is cherry picked and hastily generalized. Many significant leaders are mentioned in the leads of various countries; should they also be removed, such as in the ones mentioned above? DeathTrain (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
After a quick look at the articles of ten other EU countries, picked at random, I didn't find even one that mentioned the current PM in the lead. So the precedent is very much against it. Jeppiz (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: What were the countries you looked at? It is important not to cherry pick your information. DeathTrain (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
So for which EU countries do you find the current PM in the lead? Jeppiz (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: Why does must this discussion only focus on PM's in EU countries? Is that not an admission of cherry picking? It also seems to me like this reduction in the scope of comparison is a red herring. Not all countries in the European Union are even parliamentary systems (i.e. France). If you look at articles for countries all over the world, many of them mention longtime incumbent leaders (not only Prime Ministers) like Atatürk and Erdogan in Turkey (along with many Ottoman leaders), Museveni in Uganda, Lukashenko in Belarus, Mugabe and Mnangagwa in Zimbabwe, Nazerbayev and Tokayev in Kazakhstan, Niyazov and Berdimuhamedow in Turkmenistan, Obiang in Equatorial Guinea, Assad in Syria, Sisi in Egypt, Saleh and Hadi in Yemen, Bashir in Sudan, Biya in Cameroon and Deby in Chad. They are all significant, longtime leaders in their respective countries and many of whom have or had authoritarian tendencies. Also, if you refuse to give your own evidence, then I have a difficult time construing this as not cherry picking. DeathTrain (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@DeathTrain: I'd politely suggest that you're only one engaging in cherry picking, as you explicitly seek out the rare exceptions. It's already perfectly clear that there's no support to include Orban in the lead, just as we don't do for any other EU countries. Your aggressive behavior here is starting to come across as disruptive. Jeppiz (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: Your refusal to give counterevidence to clearly refute my points or so that I can analyze or compare it is not the reason why I intend to end this discussion. Let me be clear, I no longer intend to convince anyone that Orban should be mentioned in the lead section in any way at this time, as for whatever the reasons may be, the consensus from other editors is that he is not significant enough (albeit for reasons I cannot quite understand). I have made my case that he is because he is significant enough, as he is a longtime leader, a Eurosceptic (albeit a soft one), and self-describes his governance as "illiberal", which I find is concerning given how the article currently only says that Hungary became a democratic parliamentary republic in 1989. This being in the context of how similar longtime "illiberal" leaders are also mentioned in the lead sections of their respective countries. The only things I would like to ask are could Orban and/or his illiberal governance ever be significant enough to be mentioned in the lead in the future? What would be required for that to happen? What would he need to do to warrant being mentioned in the lead like how Mugabe and Mnangagwa are mentioned in the lead of Zimbabwe, how Erdogan is mentioned in the lead of Turkey or in any of the examples I listed above? DeathTrain (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
It does not matter if Orban and his government are good or bad, black or white, liberal or illiberal because this highly debated, controversial topic does not belong to the lead. Pls stop POV pushing. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Fakirbakir: Did you not read my last reply? DeathTrain (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jeppiz: has right, and your argumentation became very circular (btw. I answered much of these by our personal talk). It seems it is very important for you to have it mentioned. Shortly, consensus would be needed to include, which you clearly don't have. I repeat, that what is by other articles should be discussed on those articles itself. Funnily, if I'd stick to a person mentioned, it would be Ferenc Puskás, who is the most known person from Hungary, but I am fine not mentioning anyone (inlcuding Árpád or Stephen).(KIENGIR (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC))
@KIENGIR: The reason why I repeated many of my arguments is because I found little to no refutation, and the counterarguments I found were mostly fallacious, like Jeppiz's refusal to provide his own counterevidence so I can compare it with Orban and how mentioning Orban at all was considered too controversial, so mentioning it would be "shoapboxing [sic]", even though MOS:LEAD once again mandates that lead sections should include "any prominent controversies". I already said, I no longer intend to convince anyone at this time that he should be mentioned in the lead; what I want to know is if he and/or his illiberalism could ever be added in the future, and what would be required for that to happen? DeathTrain (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@DeathTrain:, although you have asked the question several times about "what would be required" for Orban to be mentioned in the lead, Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not applied in such a mathematical, or legalistic way; rather they are guidelines that are interpreted by other editors who are volunteers, like you. So there is no definite response that can be given about the future. Think maybe, a framework like the U.S. Constitution, that different editors (legal scholars) might view differently for different articles (lawsuits), and even for the same article. As far as comparing to the lead of other countries, see WP:OTHERSTUFF; every case is different.

The bottom line is consensus; Wikipedia is a community of editors that edit by common agreement, and if you're getting strong pushback by a number of editors with experience in such matters, that's a sign that you might need to let it go. It seems unlikely that the current consensus against you would flip, with the addition of more opinions. And, at this point, I must add my agreement that Orban does not belong in the lead. Hungary was around long before Orban, and will be around long after. Which isn't to say, that in a couple hundred years, there won't be some really high-level, significant changes in Hungary that would require some changes to the lead, so maybe we can all agree to reconvene then and take it up again?

One other thing you should know: I'm not sure if you are aware how you are coming across to others, but you sound a bit insistent, and your repeated comments about what you're not going to do "at this time", which you bolded for emphasis, sounds a bit like a warning that you might edit war in the future, to force your change in. That would not be advisable. If that's not what you meant by that, then my apologies; but you should be aware of what it may sound like to other editors, with whom you are going to have to ultimately get approval if you want to see your desired change in the article. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Do not worry, I have never engaged in an edit war before, nor do I ever intend to. The reason why I repeated and bolded for emphasis was because I found that the opposing camp continually refused to directly and clearly refute my points, notably when Jeppiz refused to give his own counterexamples. If he ever did, I planned to see if they were comparable to Orban, (i.e., if they have been in power for as long, if not longer, or if their influence on the country's politics was as significant as Orban). You can find many sources on Orban's own page that his illiberalism and conservatism has attracted "significant international attention" and that "during his time in government since 2010, Hungary has experienced democratic backsliding, shifting towards authoritarianism." But honestly, I do not want this discussion to resume in the future, as I dislike Orban and hope that he and his party are out of power soon. DeathTrain (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@DeathTrain: we are not here to spread our own political views. Please respect other editors' time. Borsoka (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Borsoka: Once again, I no longer intend to convince anyone of editing anything in the lead, but I still want to understand why you believe that mentioning Orban's self-described illiberalism is different from mentioning something like Lukashenko's self-described authoritarianism in Belarus. DeathTrain (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Just stop this, you've got enough answers to all of your questions from more editors. This page has nothing to do with alleged political descriptions.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC))
@KIENGIR: What is "alleged" about this? Orban has clearly stated that he is in favor of creating an "illiberal" state, and many observers, including the EU itself have come to the conclusion that he intends to do so.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hungary-orban/hungarian-pm-sees-shift-to-illiberal-christian-democracy-in-2019-european-vote-idUSKBN1KI0BK

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-ministers-hungary-poland-idUSKBN1YE1GA

https://www.democratic-erosion.com/2019/11/24/anti-immigrant-policies-and-democratic-erosion-in-hungary/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/23/world/europe/tusk-orban-migration-eu.html DeathTrain (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@DeathTrain: you received different answers from multiple editors. It is clear that all editors who have so far commented on this issue say that Orbán should not be mentioned in the lead. I respect you opinion, but we are not here to convince each individual editor. Again: please respect other editors' time and stop this. Sorry, I will ignore your comments on this issue. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
@Borsoka: I feel that you have already ignored most of my replies since this discussion began. I honestly never wanted to make an edit mentioning Orban at all, yet alone that his leadership was illiberal and undermining democracy in the country until I felt that excluding it would violate WP:NEUTRAL and MOS:LEAD. I have more important things to do then continue an argument over an edit I wish I never felt was necessary to add, and I am sure all of you do too. As you believe that the article is already neutral enough, I should probably be happy, as hopefully, all you who do not think he is significant enough to be mentioned in the lead are right and that he will not be that significant in Hungary's history in the long term. So let me be clear, I am bowing out of this discussion and I have no intentions of restarting it in the foreseeable future. Hopefully, I will never need to restart this discussion for the reasons I previously explained.DeathTrain (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
No need to mention anyone 2 times.--Moxy 🍁 21:57, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
DeathTrain, I answer because you asked a question, alleged I meant you mentioned Lukashenko and his own description (which I really don't care and investigate in connection with Hungary, e.g.) On the other hand, I concur the above mentioned, I won't continue this discussion, shall I get any further answer.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC))
@KIENGIR: @Borsoka: @Mathglot: @Moxy: @Jeppiz: @Fakirbakir: I am sorry I have to return to this discussion so soon, but I want to know this: What would you all think of mentioning the Fidesz party in the lead instead of Orban? DeathTrain (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@DeathTrain:, let me answer by way of another question. Fidesz is a political party in Hungary. How many political parties (roughly) have there been in Hungary, since the first one that could be called a "political party"? Prior to that, how many ruling factions, and opposing factions have there been, since the 9th or 10th century? This is not a facetious question; the point is to give perspective about the importance of this one political party, in the grand sweep of ten centuries or so of Hungary's existence. The policy behind this question, is WP:DUE WEIGHT. Please have a look at that policy, then think about the "How many..." question, and let me know if you think it's still a good idea to mention Fidesz in the lead. If you still do think so, can you give a justification for how "Fidesz" would rate a mention, while (however many) other parties and political factions in Hungary's history would not also get equal time in the lead? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Deathtrain, obviously no for mentioning, for the same reasons.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2020 (UTC))
@Mathglot: WP:DUE mentions that "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". While many parties have existed in Hungary throughout its history, some are much more significant than others. Fidesz is mentioned more than any other party in the body of the article. Other parties that are mentioned in the body of the article include the far-right Arrow Cross Party despite only being in power for less than six months, and is appropriately referenced in the lead section in the line "Hungary joined the Axis Powers in World War II, suffering significant damage and casualties". Similarly, the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party during the Goulash Communism era is referenced in the line "Following the failed 1956 revolution against the Soviet-backed government, Hungary became a comparatively freer, though still repressive, member of the Eastern Bloc." Most other parties are only mentioned or referenced a few times in the Political parties section. In the article List of political parties in Hungary, many of the parties listed were not active yet alone in power for very long. Others that can be seen as more significant like the Arrow Cross Party or the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party would be better elaborated upon in the articles for predecessor states such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) or the Hungarian People's Republic. You could call it a symptom of WP:RECENT, but articles for modern countries almost always tend to focus on modern-day politics and government in their respective "Politics and/or Government" sections as it would be inappropriate to elaborate too much or give undue weight on something like the Nazi Party in the "Politics" section for modern-day Germany. Therefore, I have always seen a clash between the policies of WP:DUE and WP:RECENT in the articles for modern countries. Prior to the emergence of political parties, the article itself does not give much elaboration on prior rebellions in Hungary, but does mention that different factions and powers such as the Ottoman Empire or the Habsburg Monarchy at different times have ruled all or parts of Hungary, which are also referenced in the lead section. DeathTrain (talk) 01:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@DeathTrain:, I agree with you that there is somewhat of a tension between WP:DUE and WP:RECENT, and you're right to mention it. There isn't an obvious solution there, and we just have to talk it out. The one area where I might disagree with your analysis, is in your measure of what was WP:DUE in the lead, based on how often stuff was mentioned in the body; I'd say that it should be measured more against the distribution of views in secondary, reliable sources in the literature, rather than what's in the body of the article, and even there, you've got a good argument (which you didn't use explicitly, but implied) in WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The flip side of that being, that since Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, there's also a tension between WP:DUE and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, because what if the body doesn't summarize the literature appropriately per WP:DUE—in that case, it's hopeless to try to get the lead right. But I think your arguments are good ones; I'm not sure I'm persuaded by them (yet?), but you support your views much better with them than earlier. But let's see what others think. Mathglot (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: Yes, I was referring to WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. DeathTrain (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@KIENGIR: @Borsoka: @Moxy: @Jeppiz: @Fakirbakir: So what do you think about the tension between WP:DUE, WP:RECENT and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY? DeathTrain (talk) 19:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
I think this discussion should end, as we intended. No consensus for modifying the lead.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC))

@DeathTrain: I agree with KIENGIR (and everybody else) on this. Hopefully, this will be the last comment in this section (hint, hint!)

I know you are interested in the "tension between policies" question, and it's a good one, but not here. This article talk page is reserved for "improving the article". So, it's really just a question of venue. My suggestion, would be to either take it up on the Talk page of one of the policies involved, such as WT:NPOV (the Talk page corresponding to WP:DUE) or perhaps better, since it involves several policies, at the Village pump page reserved for policy discussions. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree, this discussion should end. WP is not the place where someone is expected to follow a political agenda. Borsoka (talk) 01:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: So I did. DeathTrain (talk) 02:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@DeathTrain:. Thanks for the ping. Can you provide a link to your new discussion? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
@Mathglot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Clashes_of_policies

Respond to me

I am a native of hungary and I would kindly ask you to give me permission to edit this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.145.210 (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

See WP:CONFIRMED, until you may file here an WP:EDITREQ.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC))

Developing or developed country?

The lead used to describe Hungary as a "developing country", but since it's HDI rank (and similar metrics of measuring development) have improved in recent years, and some of our own pages like Developed country § Comparative table (2020) list it as "to be considered developed", I would like to inquire as to whether that label should still be considered accurate. Please note that some of the metrics' values listed in the article have not been updated for quite a while (e.g. it's HDI rank is now 40th, but the article listed it as 45th until January this year). TucanHolmes (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You can update it.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

Updating the map at the administrative divisions section

There are two main issues with that county map in the administrative divisions section: First, it's a pixelated mess. Second, it doesn't reflect the current state of counties anymore (Zirc-Pannonhalma district reorganization in 2002, Csongrád has been renamed to Csongrád-Csanád county in 2020, etc.) Would be nice if someone with edit rights could update it with something more appropriate (maybe with this one). - 91.147.218.140 (talk) 10:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You are right, I agree too. I changed it with the picture you mentioned! Korvidus (talk) 10:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2021

2021 GDP estimates available from IMF. 2001:4C4C:1A60:6600:240A:C6B1:84F1:6EDD (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 16:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

"Landlocked" country

Now, Hungary, by geography, is indeed a landlocked country. However, when somebody decides to add landlocked to the lead of this article, the word ends up getting removed by certain users. Why is that? Is being landlocked a "crime" or something, or does it make a country look bad? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a personal website where people can run things by their own choices. Danloud (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, "landlocked" is not a pejorative term. Liechtenstein is a doubly landlocked microstate, but I think many of us would live there. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it's pejorative, just that while it maybe landlocked, there's no need for that to be in the short description.Pipsally (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Pipsally Its not a "short description", its the lead of the country's Wikipedia page, where people come to know information about a nation. Other landlocked nations also mention how they're landlocked, it shapes the geography of a country without access to a sea or ocean. I personally agree with this addition. Noelcubit (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, what's being edited is the short description...Pipsally (talk) 18:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It should be moved to the short description like other European landlocked countries such as Slovakia, Austria, and the Czech Republic. (talk) 10:37 May 7 2021 (CT)

There is no point in having it there. ForTheLorax (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I relocated it to a different place in the short description. I hope this appeases everyone. It's just that "landlocked country" is more of a geographic term, not a form of state. ForTheLorax (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2021

change GDP PPP year 2020 to GDP PPP year 2021

change GDP_PPP (2020 estimate) $316.342 billion to (2021 estimate) $359.901 billion change GDP PPP per capita (2020 estimate) $32,434 to (2021 estimate) $36,848

change GDP nominal year 2020 to GDP nominal year 2021

change GDP (2020 estimate) nominal $149.939 billion to (2021 estimate) $180.959 billion change GDP nominal per capita (2020 estimate) $15,373 to (2021 estimate) $18.527

[1] 2001:4C4C:1A60:6600:508F:8362:7A98:72E0 (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2021/October/weo-report?c=944,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2021&ey=2021&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1
 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2021

Both the first and the third sentence in the article containt the fact that Hungary is a landlocked country. That's a non-necessary repetition. Vbv600 (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Small modification requests on 11 Nov 2021

In section "Third Republic (1989–present)" it reads "Ferenc Gyurcsány had claimed in a closed-door speech that his party "lied" to win the recent elections." This isn't true, the election and its fairness wasn't debated (not back then, and not now). He did in fact said "Hazudtunk reggel, délben, este / We've lied in the morning, at noon and in the evening", but that wasn't the reason. He also said "Elkúrtuk, nem kicsit, nagyon / We've fucked it up, not just a bit, but big time." This vulgar admittance of their total incompetence was that actually started the unrest. The name of the first Hungarian political thriller movie, "Elk*rtuk" comes from this vulgar phrase too.

So I guess to be historically correct, this should read as "Ferenc Gyurcsány had admitted in a closed-door speech in a particularly vulgar tone that his party "f*cked it up big time" and "lied" to the people.", or similar. The emphasis is on the admittance of their own wrongdoing in a vulgar tone, that's what fueled the protests.

Another, really minor thing: in section Transport, the page reads "There are five international airports in Hungary: Budapest Liszt Ferenc (informally called "Ferihegy" after its previous name)". Now this last part is a bit misleading, because Ferihegy is not a previous name of the area, but actually a nickname: "Feri" a friendlier, nick version of "Ferenc", and "hegy" just means hills.

 Partly done: I'll shorten the parenthetical to fix the issue RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of "Template:Largest cities of Hungary"

Template:Largest cities of Hungary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

I want to change wat. Is wrong at Hungary. Have more wrong Ericpaun98 (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

I want to request to edit. 82.76.116.122 (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ethnicity percentage

The percentage of ethnicities adds up to 104.3% 49.198.35.221 (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2022

In the sport section, theres a line which goes "They have also seen success in canoeing and kayaking they are the third most successful overall" I think it should be changed to "They have also seen success in canoeing and kayaking, and are the third most successful country overall"

Also, maybe move the hyperlink from "they are the third most successful overall" to "canoeing and kayaking" Aidan9382 (talk) 15:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done —GMX(on the go!) 16:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2022

The last paragraph of politics is the most important part. That's an error. Move it up. 128.147.28.66 (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Most of these sections are ordered chronologically. Cannolis (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

President of Hungary

The president of Hungary has been Katalin Novák since 10 of March, 2022. 2001:4C4E:152D:C200:C052:CC1D:BF66:90C (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2022

178.164.193.119 (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

We have a new president called Katalin Novák, so the current informations are uncorrect. Could it be changed please?

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. My understanding is that she takes office May 10. Do you have a source that says otherwise? Cannolis (talk) 19:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

Koni YT (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi The president of Hungary is not Áder János anymore, instead it is Novák Katalin. Thank you

 Not done for now: See above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Driving side

The driving side of Hungary is left! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Németh07 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Driving side refers to the side of the road cars drive on (↓↑), not which side of the car the driver seat is in. Fbergo (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh okay. I was the one who write this and accidentally I was not logged in. Can an admin delete this? Please Németh07 (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2022

The opinion-based commentary from Freedom House (a hyper-partisan left-wing activist group funded by the US govt with ties to the CIA) need to be removed to provide some semblance of impartiality. It is the last paragraph of the Government section where it basically says anything conservative is fascist. 96.8.248.113 (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: If you believe Freedom House is unreliable, that the entire paragraph is simply an opinion-based commentary, and that it is making the claim that anything conservative is fascist, then that would be something to discuss on the talk page. An edit request is for non-controversial alterations, of which this definitely would be contentious. —Sirdog (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"It is considered a developed country"

Please don't be offended, but according to our article and map at developed country, this is not the case. Look, I know this is bizarre, I am a Pole and Poland is also not a developed country (according to that page). Blame IMF which still (as of 2022) classifies Poland and Hungary as developing countries: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2022/01/weodata/groups.htm I suggest removing the claim that it is a developed country (currently unreferenced), although I would not replace it with a claim that it is developing (it's IMHO nonsensical). If you want to keep referenced, positive terms, just stick to "very highly developed" (an HDI term [6]), and let's forget that VHD category (top level in HDI) also includes Bahamas, Barbados, Cosa Rica and Malaysia... :P Another term, also used in lead, is the World Bank high-income economy . FYI, lead for Poland does not use the term "developed country", but a referenced "developed market" (although for whatever reason, Hungary is not recognized as one yet, this time blame FTSE). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Piotrus, thanks for your constructive comment, I will take a look at it. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2022

The GDP per capita data is quite outdated. It is 20,336 USD per capita on nominal terms and 40,944 in PPP. Viktortheeditor (talk) 05:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Update national Assembly

Update the national assembly In the politics section hungary had elections in 2022 176.72.75.237 (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

Please change GDP estimates for the year 2022 from 2021

Change GDP(nominal) from $180.959 billion to $197.813 billion 

      GDP per capita from $18,527 to $20,336

      GDP (PPP) from $359.901 billion to $398.278 billion
      GDP (PPP) per capita from $36,848 to 40,944

[1] $ 188.157.125.255 (talk) 17:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 15:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2022/April/weo-report?c=944,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2022&ey=2022&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1

Change Hungary‘s government type to „Electoral autocracy“

The EU has branded Hungary as an „Electoral Autocracy“, whereas this wikipedia page names Hungary a unitary parliamentary Republic. This needs to be corrected effectively immediately. 2A02:810C:4CBF:E144:2071:E13:9362:8256 (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

no, that section in the infobox is used to describe the constitutional form of the country, various african dictatorships are described similarly. I do think the lead section should at least mention it however. jonas (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Unitary dominant-party republic will be maybe the right one, it is applicalble for Namibia or Singapore. One party dominating politics with >67% constituent majority for 12 years now. It is acknowledged by Cambridge study, [1] and a local think-tank [2] or Polish researchers say the current elections they consolidated dominance over political system [3] Páfrány (talk) 08:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-review/article/abs/hungarys-overpowerful-government-party-and-the-desperate-opposition/E2F1F9736CFC79C5BBB0E6574CB20BF2
  2. ^ https://meltanyossag.hu/en/fidesz-dominance/
  3. ^ https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2022-04-15/electoral-triumph-fidesz-a-difficult-term-ahead

Was this written by the Hungarian tourist board?

The text here (in the introduction and overview) reads like marketing. 84.163.64.43 (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Central and Eastern Europe

Hungary is also considered an Eastern European country, and it would be good to include that in the article. 86.177.118.208 (talk) 15:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

False news

Ignore this, it's debunked false news. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/hungary-s-viktor-orban-flees-budapest-s-huge-anti-government-protest/ar-AA13joV2 2A00:23C7:91AB:BC01:F826:5B44:7238:8BA9 (talk) 23:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2022

Change nominal GDP from "$184,651 billion" to "$184.651 billion"

See

https://www.google.com/search?q=hungary+gdp Szmi (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done per MOS:DECIMAL. Aidan9382 (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The recently (or at least to my knowledge) added Authoritarian in this page.

I won't get into this but rather I will let you vote under here to keep it or to not keep it. This vote is going to be useless though because this page can be edited by anyone. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 04:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Cities & towns

In the "Cities & towns" sections, can it be made clear if cities/towns/villages can or can not cross district and county boundaries? I am not clear on whether there is any law concerning this, though, it would appear that they don't. If there is a law on this, please provide the citation for it. Criticalthinker (talk) 00:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Legally they can't cross borders. There are a few cities that de facto cross a country border – some of them used to be one town before WWI, e.g. Komárom in Hungary and Komárno in Slovakia (Komárom used to be a part of Komárno, with the two parts being separated by the Danube which became the country border after 1920), Esztergom in Hungary and Stúrovo in Slovakia (have always been technically separate towns, but practically they've grown together, only the river separates them), Sátoraljaújhely and Slovenské Novo Mesto (the latter used to be a part of SAújhely before 1920, before the river Ronyva became a country border). They are, of course, legally part of the administrative systems of their respective countries, but they look like they were just parts of one town (especially since both countries joining EU in 2004, and the construction of the Maria Valeria bridge in Esztergom).
The number of "cities with county rights" should be updated to 25, as Baja and Esztergom received this right last year. 2A02:AB88:7506:7280:415:8D8A:2937:524E (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2023

change the line:

Some Jews were able to escape, but most were either deported to concentration camps, where they were killed by Arrow Cross members.

to:

Some Jews were able to escape, but most were either deported to concentration camps, or killed by Arrow Cross members.

Explanation:

Clearly a typo or a mis-translation. Arrow Cross members were killing Jews inside the borders of Hungary, especially in Budapest. They were not present in the German-operated concentration camps. Takbal (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 09:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

GDP listing hyperlink reads (42st)

fix 131.180.28.112 (talk) 09:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Kilometers vs Kilometres

At the beginning of the article, it describes the land area of Hungary. Should the words be Kilometers (American English) or Kilometres (British English? 2604:2D80:A610:9300:2DF0:7B7B:E864:13DE (talk) 00:12, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Error in education description

The article states that secondary education is free in Hungary. It should be changed to post-secondary Ramasters1 (talk) 13:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Spelling errors

everything here has a few too many spelling errors 97.95.133.52 (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

So fix it. Since this page is semi-protected, make an edit request. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 18:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I just went through the entire article and made some spelling corrections, but there didn't seem to me to be all that many. I ignored the following possible changes, for now, subject to discussion:
  1. Proper names of persons, places, etc., and words in other languages. This is beyond my knowledge. 97.95.133.52, if those are the errors you refer to, and you can correct them, go for it.
  2. British spellings, like labour and specialise. If the consensus is that they should be Americanized, I can go back and do that.
  3. A few words that weren't in the online, free version of Merriam-Webster, or found in use in a Google search, but were in Wiktionary.
Dgndenver (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


62.165.217.142 (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Connections to the "Eastern world" and Organization of Turkic States

A user repeteadly added the following text to the lead:

In recent times, Hungary has developed increasingly strong geopolitical ties with the Eastern World.[1][2] Since 2018, it has held observer status within the Organisation of Turkic States.[3]

This is a random piece of information that does not belong to the lead which should only give a very brief overview of the country. Referring to "eastern connections" is very vague and many western countries have much stronger ties, e.g., with China and India, than Hungary, yet, none of them have this in their lead. Referring to the Organization of Turkic States is even more irrelevant, as Hungary only has an observer status, and even full members do not have this information in the lead of their WP articles. Hungary is a full member of hundreds of various organizations, it does not make sense to randomly list one in which the country is only an observer. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree, that should be not in the lead, this user is new, probably he does not know the wiki standards. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
For me this was very strange from that user, he claimed the Hungarian foods are Ottoman and Asian foods :D https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_cuisine&diff=prev&oldid=1176615793 OrionNimrod (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
?? I did not introduce that claim about Hungarian food. It was another user that mentioned the Ottoman influence on Hungarian food, and claimed that Hungarian food was over a base of traditional elements from Central Asia. All I did was modify his edit to mention it as an influence rather than the foundation of Hungarian food. I wasn’t going to remove these additions, as they are not necessarily incorrect, Hungary’s cuisine was influenced by the Ottoman Empire. However, in relation to the eastern origins of the Hungarians, I do not know how much it influenced the cuisine. Atilla the Great (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments, however, I still believe it was appropriate to mention it. It’s common knowledge that Hungary is very politically divided from the countries to its west, and, if you follow Hungarian politics, you will know that, Hungary is increasingly politically involved with countries to its East. Atilla the Great (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a kind of political POV that should be avoided in WP, especially in the lead of a country. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:10, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry my mistake, it was another user https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarian_cuisine&diff=prev&oldid=1165108671 OrionNimrod (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Orbán hosts Erdoğan and other eastern leaders on Hungary's National Day". euronews. 2023-08-21. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  2. ^ "Government: Our policy of opening to the East is working". Daily News Hungary. 2023-07-01. Retrieved 2023-09-18.
  3. ^ "ANALYSIS - Hungary in the Organization of Turkic States: A Bridge between East and West". www.aa.com.tr. Retrieved 2023-09-19.

Length

At nearly 15k words of readable prose, this article is quite long - it would benefit from being summarized and details shifted to subarticles, per WP:SS. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Puzzled

What does this mean? "The vast majority of the seventeen and nineteen thousand Ottoman soldiers in service in the Ottoman fortresses in the territory of Hungary were Orthodox and Muslim Balkan Slavs rather than ethnic Turkish people." Maybe "seventeen TO nineteen"?

I would fix it if I knew what was intended, but I'm unsure. The reference is to a book, so I can't check it. Dgndenver (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It would be ok to change it to "thousands". The precise number doesn't add much value. Nemo 07:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Ottoman Hungary

Hi @Szirtyu, are you able to read Hungarian sources?

What is your opinion? @Norden1990 @Borsoka @Gyalu22

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungary&diff=prev&oldid=1193225987

I think the lead is just a short summarize of the events. Hungarian historiography holds the well known view "150 years Ottoman occupation" term [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12](which we know is more or less number), all of them starts from 1541, when Buda was occupied and Hungary was split in three.

[13]"With the capture of Buda in 1541, Ottoman rule began in the central part of Hungary. But this rule was at first limited to the military occupation of a few fortified places. It took many years for the Turks to build up their public administration, the institutions that set the framework for their settlement here"

"Central part' is a general broad term, this is a lead, the sub article has all details and maps: Ottoman Hungary. Belgrade was occupied in 1521, after Mohacs, some southern areas was occupied in Syrmia, but that are just border regions and Hungary was not occupied, but Hungary was destroyed and occupied by the date of 1541 by the siege of Buda, and Buda was recaptured in 1686, and after the second battle of Mohacs in 1687, and finally by the Treaty of Karlowitz Hungary was mostly recaptured and restored, only the Temes region remained udner Ottoman control until 1718 by the Treaty of Passarowitz. Why should we care border areas in the lead? For example Belgrade was occupied by the Habsburgs 3 times just in 1700s. Should we talk about more "Ottoman Hungary" because of Belgrade? Because of a border area?

Should we say A country occupied B country or B country occupied A country just because the border regions always changed? OrionNimrod (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

the Banat of Temeswar, Belgrade and Syrmia were occupied by the Ottomans until the Treaty of Passarowitz in 1718. Furthermore, after the Treaty of Karlowitz, it took time for some of the territories ceded to the Habsburgs under this treaty to actually be transferred from Ottoman to Habsburg rule. Whilst Buda was ruled between 1541 and 1699, it’s appropriate to specify the years 1526 and 1718 as the sentence describes the period during which the Kingdom was partially occupied. the way it was written, specifying only the period during which the central part was occupied could have been misinterpreted as meaning only the central part was occupied. Szirtyu (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Szirtyu, why do you want to overwrite and supervise the Hungarian historiography? The lead is a summarize of the events. We should emphasize those things short which are emphasized in the Hungarian historiography. The siege of Belgrade in 1521 and the 1718 treaty is not emphasized at all. But everybody can read those information if somebody see the details below or in the sub articles.
Modern school books from the Hungarian national curriculum
All emphaize that Ottoman Hungary formed in 1541 when Hungary was split in three (morover the first Ottoman elayet established at that time in Hungary) and Hungarian sources emphasize the Ottomans recognized the loss of Ottoman Hungary in 1699.
https://www.tankonyvkatalogus.hu/pdf/OH-TOR06TB__teljes.pdf
page 59
"The fall of Buda and the splitting of the country into three parts"
"After the death of János Szapolyai, Ferdinand wanted to put an end to the division of the country. He tried to occupy all of Hungary with an army. The Turks did not remain idle either. Sultan Suleiman's army soon he reached Buda. In 1541, the Turks took Buda Castle by trick. However, it was not enough to occupy the entire country their strength. Thus, only the central area was annexed to the Ottoman Empire. Hungary was divided into three parts: 1. The western and northern parts were the Kingdom of Hungary (royal Hungary). Its rulers came from the Habsburg family, its center It was Bratislava. 2. The sultan donated the eastern part to the son of János Szapolyai, the infant János Zsigmond. Later, this area was called the Principality of Transylvania. 3. In the area between the two, the Turks were the master: this part was called subjugation."
Ottoman occupation chapter:
page 88: "Turkish rule: In 1541, Buda was taken by the Turks."
https://www.tankonyvkatalogus.hu/pdf/OH-TOR06TA__teljes.pdf
page 67:
"After the capture of Buda, the country was divided into three parts. The central areas of the country came under the authority of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire, where the so-called subjugation (Ottoman Hungary) developed. The western and northern half of the country was connected to the countries of the Habsburgs, the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary remained under the rule of Ferdinand Habsburg and his successors they ruled. The sultan donated the eastern half of the country to his son Szapolyai, and the Principality of Transylvania was created from this."
"After the loss of Buda in 1541, the borders of the individual parts of the country were formed along a new castle line."
page 80:
"The liberation of Hungary and the recapture of Buda took place at the end of the 17th century after nearly 150 years of Turkish subjugation."
page 81:
"The war did not end with the recapture of Buda. The imperial armies pushed the Turks out of Hungary relatively quickly and occupied Transylvania as well. Later, however, in the west, the French again started a war against the Habsburgs, so significant forces had to be withdrawn from the Turkish battlefield. The advance was stalled for a few years, and the Turks were even able to regain smaller areas. Finally, the decade and a half war was concluded by the Peace of Karlóc in 1699, as a result of which even the Turks now recognized: Hungary was liberated. The Ottoman Empire was the only one able to keep Temesköz in the south-eastern part of the country, but nearly twenty years later the Turks were pushed out from there as well"
https://www.tankonyvkatalogus.hu/pdf/FI-504010601_1__teljes.pdf
page 104:
"The Peace of Karlóc, signed in 1699, made the dream of generations come true: a large part of Hungary was freed from the Turkish rule that had lasted for more than one hundred and fifty years. The Ottoman Empire was the only one able to keep Temesköz in the southern part of the country."
https://www.tankonyvkatalogus.hu/pdf/OH-TOR10TA__teljes.pdf
page 40:
"In 1541, Ferdinand sent a strong army to capture Buda. Fráter György, who was in a difficult situation, turned to the Turks for help, although it is true that Sülejmán also decided on the new campaign. The siege failed and the arriving Ottoman force encamped below Buda. After a few days, the sultan invited the Szapolyai followers to visit, and during the hospitality, his troops captured the capital of the country by trickery in 1541. August 29. The Sultan spared the lives of Zsigmond János and Izabella Jagielló, who were captured. He handed over the administration of the part of the country east of the Tisza to them, and recognized the infant king as his vassal. uda, however, remained in the hands of the Turks. Thus, with the formation of the occupied territory along the Danube (Hódoltság (Ottoman Hungary)), the country was divided into three parts."
page 59:
"The decisive defeat of the Ottomans occurred in the Battle of Zenta (1697), where the Sultan's army crossing the Tisza was defeated by the Emperor Jenő of Savoy. was destroyed by After a long negotiation, the two parties concluded a peace in 1699 (Peace of Karlóca), the Turks recognized the loss of the Hódoltság (Ottoman Hungary), the territory of the country - with the exception of Temesköz - was finally liberated."
https://www.tankonyvkatalogus.hu/pdf/OH-TOR10TB__teljes.pdf
page 46:
"Sülejmán, however, saw that the time had come to occupy Buda, and his soldiers occupied the castle on August 29, 1541. He dragged Bálint Török with him and gave Isabella and the infant king the part of the country east of the Tisza. Hungary was divided into three parts."
"In 1526, the Sultan occupied Buda, but withdrew from the city. Between 1528 and 1540, the Sultan supported János Szapolyai because it was cheaper for him to maintain a fiefdom than to invade. Between 1529 and 1540, the sultan launched campaigns against the Habsburgs alongside Szapolyai. They intervene in the internal strife of the defeated country. After the death of Szapolyai, the sultan occupies Buda, because he is not sure that the guardians of the infant king are able to keep the fiefdom. 1541: Capture of Buda and the central area of the country."
page 67:
"However, the Habsburg Empire was able to withstand the two-front war. The talented general, Jenő of Savoy, again won a decisive victory over the main Turkish forces at Zenta (1697). The Ottoman Empire, due to the heavy defeat and exhaustion of its resources, asked for peace. The Danube monarchy also replenished its resources, thus the peace of Karlóc was born in 1699. Hungary was liberated with the exception of Temesköz, and Transylvania also came under Habsburg rule." OrionNimrod (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
hi, I have not made an argument that disputes the general information in the sources you have provided here. The main period of Ottoman occupation in the Kingdom of Hungary was between 1541 and 1699.
However, for example, two of the quotes you provided fail to mention that Belgrade and Syrmia were still under Ottoman rule until 1718. If information is not widely available, it is not uncommon for sources to provide incomplete information on one topic or another.
"The Peace of Karlóc, signed in 1699, made the dream of generations come true: a large part of Hungary was freed from the Turkish rule that had lasted for more than one hundred and fifty years. The Ottoman Empire was the only one able to keep Temesköz in the southern part of the country."
“Hungary was liberated with the exception of Temesköz, and Transylvania also came under Habsburg rule."
The following quote is generally accurate, because the Ottoman territory of modern Hungary that remained under Ottoman rule until 1718 was only in the Banat of Temeswar. So the vast majority of modern Hungary was liberated as a result of the 1699 treaty, but it still was the vast majority and not the absolute entirety:
"The liberation of Hungary and the recapture of Buda took place at the end of the 17th century after nearly 150 years of Turkish subjugation."
for me what is important is that the information in the lead is accurate.
it does not need to provide intricate details of the Ottoman occupation of Hungary, as that can be complex and the situation varied over the period. Szirtyu (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The territory of present day Hungary was fully liberated after the second battle of Mohacs in 1687 (Mohacs is at the Croatian, Serbian border). Ottomans acknowledged the loss of Ottoman Hungary in 1699 by signing the treaty as close the war. You know all wars end by treaties. Hungary was split in 3 only after 1541, Ottomans created the first elayet at that time = Ottoman Hungary. That is the view of the Hungarian historiography. And Hungary was unified again when Ottoman Hungary was over, which was acknowledged by the Turks signing the treaty in 1699, And not in 1718. It does not matter that some border regions remained under Ottoman control for a short time more, or it does not matter that some border areas like Belgrade was captured by Ottomans in 1521.(Even Belgrade changed 100 times owner during its history) Hungary was still an unified country after 1521 under 1 king. Hungary was split in 3 between 1541-1699 and unified in 1699, that is the important what we need in the lead. All other detais is important as you can see I added the 1521 Belgrade event in the Ottoman Hungary article, and 1718 treaty also important but not in the lead. The lead should be short and list the most important things. Those details should be in sub articles or in detailed sections below. @Gyalu22 also made a compromise when he wrote that “turn of the 18th century” so that period can cover both 1699, 1718 time and not need link the treaties, because that is just a lead. OrionNimrod (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I see, Szirtyu, that you've committed yourself to championing clarity, and ceaselessly refer to it like it would be a cornerstone of your argument. But let me confront you with the obvious spoilage you've done on it: [14]. While the collapse of the Hungarian kingdom is given by historiography as a tripartite partition between the Ottoman Turks, Austrian Habsburgs, and a separating Transylvania you try to present it plainly as the fall of Buda to the first, followed by the cession of the country to the second. Such depiction is perplexing to those unfamiliar with the division of one-third to both empires. I'm aware that there were fluctuations on the political landscape, but what I wrote down is true for the entire 150 year period. Your call to "avoid oversimplification" and "not to get into specifics" at the same time doesn't convince anyone of your arrangement either. Gyalu22 (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree, 1541 and 1699 are the most frequent years as dates of start and end of the Ottoman Hungary period, respectively. --Norden1990 (talk) 10:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Karaynn, do you have explanation for your revert? That article is about Hungary and not the Ottoman empire. The mentioned things are part of the Hungarian history. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it is better to state the key dates in the lead instead of getting into the specifics of the power divisions. These changed during the period and cannot be accurately summed up in one sentence. The Principality of Transylvania was a vassal state of the Ottoman Empire between 1566 and 1699. The majority of the land came to be either an Ottoman eyalet or vassal state at some point. Karaynn (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I showed Szirtyu what is the statement of the Hungarian wikipedia regarding Ottoman Hungary and after he engaged to overwrite the Hungarian wiki also, but other Hungarian users in Hungarian wiki do not like his edits: https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vita:Magyarország#A_török_kor (I suppose he use just a google translator for the Hungarian language) OrionNimrod (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi Karaynn, did you recognized that the article is Hungary and not the Ottoman empire? It is very important that Hungary was split in 3 and that lead is not about the Ottoman empire. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
That is interesting, Szirtyu changed the same things in more Wikipedia regarding Hungary: Special:CentralAuth/Szirtyu
After I showed the evidences he tried to remove them from Hungarian wiki: https://hu.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vita:Magyarország&diff=prev&oldid=26755750 OrionNimrod (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungary/Archive_2&oldid=1222023855"