Talk:Italian Mare Nostrum

See here for recently archived discussions. (More archived discussions can be reached via a similar link at the top of the page linked above.)

Rongálás

EMBEREK VALKI EGY ÓVODAI hamis TÉRKÉPET TETT BE 998-as történelmi térképként (hungary in light blue), megjelölve számos akkor nem létező országot is létezőként / és egységes államként.

tegyetek be egy rendes normális középkori térképet!

PL EZT: http://www.emersonkent.com/images/europe_13th_century.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.224.3.187 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

17:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Valaki egy nagy halálfejes képet rakott be az oldal elejére,mellé odaírta, hogy merry christmas ,most vettem észre, szerencsére pont most ki is lett javítva.Ezek ellen nem lehet tenni semmit?

Csak azt, h kijavítod :) Zello (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo Gallery

Its very nice, very encylclopaedic when you consider one of the primary uses of this page is for foreigners to plan vacation ahead of travelling - pretty pictures of castles never hurt when you are tempting Japanese Americans and Aussies to stop in Hungary on their European tour... but it is very large, focuses on architecture (not necessarily bad) and has lots of "overhead" - the challenge here is to present it properly in the article.
Also, the pictures are very well done - good shots, plenty of resolution. It seems all are from the same person?? Very nice indeed. Does anyone have an idea of how best to present these in the article? Separate "photogallery" page with summary shots on the mainspace? István 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the gallery should be moved to Commons and only linked from here. Of course great inline pics can be very nice, but this is simply too much. -- nyenyec ☎ 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguably, the most beautiful man-made sight in the world is the view of Buda from Pest at night. If anyone could find a free-use shot which is as high-quality as these, then that should be featured - and quite prominently. I agree - a "Photo Gallery" of Hungary (I dont think its unfair to assist potential tourists in their research) prominently linked would be a good approach. István 14:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

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

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

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

George Demeny

Just stumbled on this while randomly timewasting at work: George_Demeny

I think it might be a hoax. The list of references is impressive but I don't think any of them refer to Demeny, while at least some of the text has been plagiarised from here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/index2.htm

There's also no obvious Google results for anyone called George Demeny in the Revolt, which seems strange if he really was a top commander. Maybe someone who knows the history of this in detail should check it out?

cheers, Moyabrit 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Hungary discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description

an expansion of the now-inactive and very small-scoped Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical Hungarian counties, using the original framework but expanding to include other things in this populous and unique European nation. There is an existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungarian culture, the national project would seek to cover other topics-politics, biography, flora and fauna... Chris 08:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro

This article would greatly benefit from better introduction. Please consider summarizing History and Politics sections into the lead if you have some knowledge of those issues. Thank you.--Pethr 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Independence again...

I've read most of the discussion above (except for the too small letters), and I think it would be best if we left out this whole Independence section. First, I don't even know how this section got into the infobox, since most countries were founded, not became independent. Second, right now the independence section in the infobox is not about independence at all, but about changes in the name of the state (államforma – couldn't find the English counterpart to this expression).

• 896, I guess, was supposed to be the year of the conquest of the area of present-day Hungary. In fact, it's impossible to assign only one year to this event. Based on astronomical calculations about the date of an eclipse that was mentioned in medieval sources 19th century astronomer Ferenc Lakits said that the conquest could not have been earlier than 891. He puts it between 894 and 898. Note that the area occupied was roughly the half of modern Hungary's area, and the western part of the country was still not fully occupied until 900. If we include this date, it should be either 900 or 894–900. The only reason why 896 is thought of as being the year of the conquest is that the millennium celebrations took place in 1896.
• The next date, the coronation of St. Stephen (which is in the old sources mentioned as having took place on the turn of 1000 and 1001, and the exact date is still debated...) is commonly called "the foundation of the state" and it could be accepted as that, but it's still not an independence date since the country has already been independent before that. It's hard to define what constituted as a state in medieval times, but if we define it as a nation living in a certain area with some kind of centralized government, then it was a state long before 1000, and Stephen's father Géza was a king in everything but name.
• 1918 is the first date which can be called an independence date but having only this one in the infobox would suggest Hungary has never been independent before.
• 1989 is completely irrelevant as an independence date. A state that has been independent since 1918 cannot become independent once more without losing its sovereign status first.

I think the best solution would be to remove the "Independence" section from the infobox, create a "Foundation" section, and, since we don't have any better dates, include 1000 as the commonly accepted foundation of the state (with explanations about it in the text of the article). – Alensha ^talk 15:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Infoboxes should contain official data. The offical foundation date of Hungary is 1000 according to the decision of the Hungarian Parliament. 2000/I törv. see the text here: http://www.complex.hu/kzldat/t0000001.htm/t0000001.htm Zello 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know there is a law about it :) It's cool that you already changed the infobox, I thought we have to ask one of the template-making wizards since it looks terribly complicated. Thanks! – Alensha ^talk 23:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"...most countries were founded, not became independent." Alensha, where the heck were you when we were all kicking each other's teeth out over who-knows-what a few months ago? ;-) Your post is a perfect summary of all the issues and misconceptions that had us yelling like lunatics but with the uneasy feeling that a point was being missed somewhere. Köszönöm szépen! K. Lásztocska 23:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm more busy now in huwiki with Ancient Egypt-related stuff. Just found out about this debate accidentally a few days ago. :) – Alensha ^talk 22:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

20 millions magyars

There are 20 millions magyars worldwide.--Székhu 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Transylvania

Shouldn't the history section say something directly about conflicting claims on, and possession of, Transylvania during the 20th Century, and describe Transylvania's pre-WWII ethnic composition? Sca 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right, however it's just an overview of the Hungarian history. I have another problem: II. Ferenc Rákóczi was born on the Felvidék (the name of the village is Borsi, the Rákóczi Mansion is being renovated right now) (what is the proper word for Felvidék in English?) and not in Transylvania. Someone who is competent, please correct it. [Coldfire]

Upper Hungary. Kope 08:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought about it, maybe Transylvania is okay because the origin of the family is substantially come from there. However, in the late 17. century, the family lost its Transylvanian territories and put its center to Upper Hungary. Just thought to mention because my eyes stuck on it. Have a nice day! [Coldfire]

Too many pictures, no need for gallery (here; maybe in Commons)

Section: Photos about the Hungarian countryside

Or is it only my opinion? --Cserlajos ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree absolutely – I told the user about it some time back and said so in an edit comment here too. Since there has been no reaction, I'll now remove the section. The images are inlined in this page anyway. KissL 08:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"The leaving Romanian army pillaged the country: livestock, machinery and agricultural products were carried to Romania in hundreds of freight cars. [22][23] The estimated property damage of their activity was so much that the international peace conference in 1919 did not require Hungary to pay war redemption to Romania.[citation needed] On November 16, with the consent of Romanian forces, Horthy's army marched into Budapest. His government gradually restored security, stopped terror, and set up authorities, but thousands of sympathizers of the Károlyi and Kun regimes were imprisoned. Radical political movements were suppressed. In March, the parliament restored the Hungarian monarchy but postponed electing a king until civil disorder had subsided. Instead, Miklos Horthy was elected Regent and was empowered, among other things, to appoint Hungary's Prime Minister, veto legislation, convene or dissolve the parliament, and command the armed forces."

When lies like this one are published, where are the supporting documents? Is this fiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.5.44.21 (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

New European vector maps

You're invite to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 12:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Micro-regions?

Below the county (megye) level, there is another layer of administration known as "kistérség". Is the best english equivalent of this the "micro-region"? This is what I have been able to find most prevelent on English-translated megye websites. I wish to know because I will soon create an article about this layer, to include all of the proper maps. Thank you. Rarelibra 21:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the translation "micro-region" - I can't find a better one either. --Cserlajos ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Central Statistical Office of Hungary publishes its official yearly gazetteer in Hungarian and English. Thus English terminology of administrative division and units is well-defined.

See http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/eng/other/hnk2006/tartalom.html

CSO uses the term subregion rather than micro-region.

--peyerk 16:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hierarchy of administrative units - counties and subregions

Hungary has a multilevel administrative division. Some levels are more important than others, some levels are real functioning general purpose local governments, others are not. NUTS and LAU form a useful system to describe the hierarchy.

On NUTS 1 level there are 3 macro-regions. These are not administrative units in any sense, instead they are only for statistical purposes.

On NUTS 2 level there are 7 regions. These are not general-purpose administrative units but many national goverment agencies are organized on this basis just like regional development councils which are bilateral bodies of national and local governments.

On NUTS 3 level we have 20 units. 19 of them are counties and one is the capital city of Budapest. These are local governments with elected councils and functioning administration. This means Hungary is not divided into counties - only Hungary except Budapest is.

On LAU 1 level there are 168 subregions. Budapest is one of them and the counties are divided into 167. Thus we cannot say counties are divided into 168 subregions - in fact the country (i.e. counties and Budapest) is. Subregions are not general purpose local governments rather they are obligatory cooperation framework for local governments for some issues. They have no directly elected bodies nor officials but they have a representative body comprising mayors of municipalities and a president elected by this body.

--peyerk 12:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We can state that the counties are divided into 167 subregions, and Budapest is its own subregion. It isn't a matter of whether or not a local administrative unit has elected bodies or not (that is described in the article for that unit). The fact remains that underneath the counties are subregions... even Budapest is its own subregion as you pointed out to me earlier. Rarelibra 16:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes.

--peyerk 08:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Heat Wave

It killed up to 500 people.

--Florentino floro 04:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hungary or Hungaria

Is the country called Hungaria or Hungary? Why would it called Hungary if all the other countries are called "ia" like Bulgaria, Nigeria, etc.?

That's the way it is, period. Rarelibra 15:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think that's absurd in English, look at German! Why Bulgarien (Bulgaria) and Libyen (Libya), but Ungarn (Hungary) and Lettland (Latvia), but Nigeria and Malaysia?? --Kuaichik 05:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well, it's actually "Magyarország", but since no one but a Magyar can pronounce that, we let people say "Hungary." (it is "Hungaria" in some other languages.) And btw, Kuaichik, have you noticed how Deutschland always ends up with the most random names in other languages? "Germany" is far enough afield, but then there's "Nemetország", "Tyskland" (I believe that is Norwegian), "Allemagne"...eh what?! K. Lásztocska 14:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You think that is weird, you should see what I ate for dinner last night. :) Rarelibra 16:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes "all other countries are called "ia"" like France, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, United States, Italy, Spain, Turkey, etc. yes every country ends in "ia" it seems. You know you're in trouble when your best example is 'Nigeria' :) Hobartimus 06:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

But note that while the adjective for France is French, for Germany is German, for Japan it is Japanese, BUT for Hungary it is Hungarian!

But boys and ladies, let's be serious about this. Notice that if you type "Hungaria" in Wikipedia it will be redirected to "Hungary". But if you type "Germania" it will NOT be redirected to "Germany". There must be a reason in English grammar for calling "Magyarország", Hungary instead of Hungaria. Or some historical reason. This is an encyclopaedia, things should be explained here.

Maybe you should take into account why "Germania," as you said, "will NOT be redirected to 'Germany'." Germania was a part of the Roman Empire. There was no such thing as "Hungaria" at the time; Hungary was made up of parts of the provinces Pannonia and Dacia.

Country-related adjectives are generally irregular in European languages, no? --Kuaichik 06:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not simply to admit that Hungary is a wrong traslation? It could have easily be wrongly traslated years ago, and then taken for granted. Hm?

Why not stopping kiddish wasting of time, dear neversigning friend? Hm?

--peyerk 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - Peyerk is right, you are wasting time discussing something that is rather moot. The fact that it redirects is simply to ensure that misspellings/misgnomers, etc are redirected to the proper place. Why not argue about, say, why they decided to change the name from "New Amsterdam" to "New York"? Why not argue why we didn't grow up on Mars instead of Earth? It would be just as wasteful and amusing. Rarelibra 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then, if nobody minds, I would like to post a reply. Hungary isn't a "wrong translation," no more than Germany is a "wrong translation" of Deutschland. Different languages may name countries quite differently, based on what their speakers perceive of the country. Often, when in doubt, speakers name a country using the most easily accessible foreign language. ("Germany," for instance, may come from Latin "Germania" because English-speakers thought of Germany as essentially former Germania, not as the "land" of the "Dutch"-speaking people...where "Dutch" has the older, more general meaning). --Kuaichik 05:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone does have an objection to me posting this reply, I will gladly remove it from here :) --Kuaichik 05:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Blind reverts of User:Irishguy

This user is incapable of understanding that this article is huge enough. --Phone1010 11:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting content. IrishGuy ^talk 11:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The long template suggests splitting the article into sections, not deleting content. And it already is split into sections. Why doesn't Phone1010 discuss such major changes on the talk page? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The {{long}} template is badly worded at that point. Sections of long articles need to be split out of the article, as explained by the linked page.

If you look carefully at the history, you'll see that Phone1010 did not remove any of the prose but just merged consecutive paragraphs and removed headings in between. (I'm not saying that this was an improvement to the article, but it certainly is different from "removing content" and does deserve discussion before, or along with, a revert, even though Phone1010 should have started a discussion himself.)

Phone1010 violated WP:NPA (above) and WP:3RR, while IrishGuy violated WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK (because he blocked a user with whom he had a content dispute) and most likely also WP:BITE (depending on whether or not Phone1010 is a newcomer, which he certainly looks). I don't know who Phone1010 is, but I think administrators should know policies much better than this. KissL 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

World War I

Did somebody forget the section on WORLD WAR ONE? The grammar is terrible. Look at the following "In First World War Hungary was fighting on the side of Austria. Hungarian troops were fighting against Russians near Premsyl, in Caporetto, where they were thought to be very reliable and been on the forefront, also, Hungarians have pushed back Romanian forces from Transylvania. In 1918, by a notion of Wilson's pacifism, the army of Hungary was dismissed, leaving the country undefended."

That's the entire section. Could somebody with a fourth grade education or above please put BACK the section on Austria-Hungary's involvement in WWI, which was huge? That would be great, thanks.

Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian Americans. Badagnani 18:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Military of Hungary

someone forgot to add this page to main entry for Hungary --Mrg3105 08:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Economy Data

in the economy section the "cumulative foreign direct investment" part is wrong i believe it is listed at 23 billion but the CIA world factbook has it at totaling more than $60 billion since 1989

Cuisine

The cuisine bit is almost entirely copied from http://www.budapesthotels.com/touristguide/food.asp. Nagy Zsolt, a rep from the page wrote me: "You are most welcome to use the page. Regards, Zsolt". Gregorik (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Permission

Permission granted by budapesthotels.com rep to cite freely: "Persze, nyugodtan! Köszönettel: Nagy Zsolt" Gregorik (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Gregorik, a simple use permission is not sufficient to copy something to Wikipedia, because the GFDL licence that Wikipedia uses also allows users of Wikipedia (and their users, etc.) to reuse the same material, which may or may not correspond with the original owner's intentions. You need to specifically ask for a permission to release the material under the GFDL, explaining the above. (Feel free to send me an e-mail if you need further clarification.) KissL 10:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

This article can in no way be listed as a GA.

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: NO WAY. List of the administrative divisions and of the public hollydays should not be on the main page of a country. Introduction is way too long. History might not be too long, but it is obviously overrepresented in the article (i.e. this article is not entitled History of Hungary).

2. Factually accurate?: It is GROSSLY underreferenced. There a lot of places where there is one reference for an entire subsection. I guess means it fails to be factually acurate

3. Broad in coverage?: There is nothing about education. Economy section barely gives some information (come on, it is a member of EU, it must have something relevant)

4. Neutral point of view?:

5. Article stability?

6. Images?: the article almost abuses the use of images. The images should be relevant more than a little to the subsection.

Please check other articles on countries that are allready a GA.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Points taken, though intro is obviously fine as it is, sorry. Gregorik (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible Hungary project

Anyone interested in a dedicated group, which is initially proposed to begin as a task force, dedicated to improving content relating to the nation of Hungary is more than welcome to indicate their interest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Hungary work group. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea, because i believe this article and others related to hungary really need a help, so I would be more than happy to participate--Philip200291 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The purpose for this proposal is to basically create a group dedicated to Hungary which would also have separate assessments, and thus a separate "statistics" page which they could use to help determine which articles might merit the most focused energy, pretty much the same as any other WikiProject. The reasons why I proposed it as a task force of Europe are basically two:

• (1) There has been a lot of attention recently to the fact that some talk pages have far too many banners, and that the presence of all those banners is becoming a bit of a distraction. By consolidating in as a work group, although probably with the WikiProject Hungary name, if I can arrange the banner to permit that, using the same project banner, that question can be bypassed in this case. In fact, in the near future I'm going to try to persuade some of the other European nation WikiProjects whose banners don't include separate assessments to do the same thing. Of course, the members of the Europe Project would have to agree to the arrangement as well, but I doubt there will be many objections from them in this regard.
• (2) I'm guessing that the Hungary project would want to include in its scope all the articles relating to the history of Hungary, including a lot of articles related to the old Hungarian Empire, whose boundaries extended well beyond current Hungary. Unfortunately, politically, it might not be such a good idea to place the Hungary banner on an article about some territory which is sensitive about it's current national identity. However, I would think that the same reservations would not necessarily be had about placing a banner which more visibly says it is related to Europe, and only on the bottom, like with the Australian banner on Talk:Sydney, for example, indicates which "descendant" projects also deal with it. If that set up were used, then I think the "blow" of the Hungary tag might be reduced, and there should be fewer objections to its presence. John Carter (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The term Magyar - delete, keep or rewrite?

Someone (only IP address known, from Budapest) deleted the whole section about the term "Magyar", then user Milk's Favorite Cookie restored it. I was first surprised, but actually I agree with the deletion. I believe Magyar and Hungarian means exactly the same thing. What are the differences between the terms written in this article based on? No references are given. I might be wrong on believing the word Hungarian also refers to the ethnicity, not just the people living in a multi ethnic country Hungary once was. This dilemma (same word for citizenship and ethnicity) must be similar in other nation states. But if I am wrong, please give references. Zoli79 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind IPs often delete portions of articles as vandalism. An outsider without knowledge of an area may assume that the reason for deletion is simple vandalism. The solution is to simply endorse the deletion by a revert so they no longer think it's an IP vandalism. Hobartimus (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I get that part, but the problem is, that I don't know whether the frequent usage of Magyar(s) here on WP is correct or not. For me this deletion served as an excuse to bring up the topic. I have an opinion on that, but that's far away from an official or scientific point of view. References would really be needed... Zoli79 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not really correct but sometimes it's used. It's enough to know that Hungarian is correct. If you want to emphasize origins you say "ethnic Hungarian", the problem with magyar that it is a magyar word and English speaking people have enough trouble already with trying to place Hungary somewhere on the map etc. If you try to use 'magyar' in a sentence talking to an US citizen for example you will likely fail miserably. Hobartimus (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote that chapter, packing it with references. I hope it's OK in this form. If not, feel free to correct. Zoli79 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's good but it's place is in a different article maybe Hungarians there is no need to discuss terms in a main country article at all. Use Hungarian normally, ethnic Hungarian when you want to say something specific that is the standard English usage. You asked for opinions to delete keep or rewrite I see that this is getting complicated with your rewrite so I'll cut it short and state my opinion delete. Hobartimus (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe before deleting it, we could discuss the matter. I spent some time on researching that matter, you know, and simply deleting it with no previous notice doesn't seem wright in my book...

As for your point: I think this is an important aspect, concerning the country, since it's the word describing its people. And if there's a controversy in English on that matter than it should be clarified. I don't think it was long enough, to bother the whole article. The other reason why I find it important to clarify these terms is that both of them are used in it, causing confusion. Zoli79 (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt it was a deletion but I didn't delete it actually, it's in the history if you want I can copy it to the Hungarians article right now it's a very easy process. You were the one that brought the whole issue up so you were the one asking for opinions but you just did a rewrite anyway after the original material was removed. You are right that these terms are used but the solution is not to give a long explanation to every term we use that's why we have other articles for god's sake, imagine if we write a long explanation on the terms Crown Kingdom Parlaiment Democracy Prime Minister etc etc etc they are all used in the article. I agree with you completely that currently both terms being used can cause issues the solution is to remove most of the uses that can cause problems with understanding and readability and unifiy standardize usage at least within the article. Hobartimus (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote that section instead of deleting it, because we did not come up with a solution on the question rewriting, or deletion. So I thought the best would be to keep the original structure, but clean up the content. I brought up the issue originally, because of the chapter's incorrect content, not because I felt the theme is irrelevant in its context.

Anyway, you may be right. If you have a good suggestion on where to fit it (e.g. Hungarian people), I'm willing to move it. As I wrote above, a part of me still suggests to keep it here, since it deals with a unique and important case regarding the country's inhabitants, which is just as important as its history or culture. There are many other topics that are dealt with in the general Hungary article and still have their own article. Zoli79 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you that as a temporary solution, move the section from the start of the History section to the end of the History section within the article. As you wrote it I don't want to do this re-ordering. This would be a thing to do until we clean up this article unify usage and the section can be moved to Hungarians. Hobartimus (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I moved it over there. Now that is a place it definitely does not belong, but I accept it as a temporary solution. This article definitely needs some clean up on the long run. :) Zoli79 (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Three non indo european official EU languages?

"The official language is Hungarian also known as Magyar, part of the Finno-Ugric family, thus one of the three official languages of the European Union that is not of Indo-European origin." Maltese, Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian are all non indo european, maltese is semetic, and the others are finno-urgic. That makes four. Unless I'm mistaken what the official languages are. If I'm correct please amend the article :). - järnspöken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.240.178 (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! Zoli79 (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are totally right...--Philip200291 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Budapestdailyreview.com - external link

Anonymus users (I guess the editors of budapestdailyreview.com) added an external link containing photos from Budapest [1]. I removed the link, then they put it back and now we are developing a nice revert war [2], [3], [4], [5].

I think the link should be removed because:

1. the photos only show Budapest, not the whole country,
2. the photos are not typical images from Hungary, they can mislead the reader who may think that this is what Hungary looks like.

Please write here your opinion on the subject. Also, please answer the obvious question, if the link should be included in the Budapest article (I think not, because reason #2). Thanks! --Hu:Totya (talk!) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? --Hu:Totya (talk!) 13:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite their being very good photos from an aesthetic POV, I would agree they are not proper for Hungary, nor Budapest to an unfamiliar reader. Not being an unfamiliar reader, however, I do recognize Bp in the photos - even get somewhat nostalgic - but that is not the same as introducing or describing the city to someone who has never been there before (descriptive yet not informative). It's like the airport signage dilemma - airport signage is installed by people who already know where everything is - it might be descriptive but does not help unfamiliar people find their way. We must write for unfamiliar people, and these photos don't speak to them in the same way. István (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please give your opinion about Proposal II which will define Central Europe

Give your support or opposition at the Central Europe talk page, since we are looking for a single definition for it. It's very important. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all that participated and gave their opinion on Proposal II.

Proposal II was approved, 13 editors supported it and 5 editors opposed it. Proposal II is now in effect and it redefined Central Europe. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Spa Culture just an advertisement?

Is it just me, or does the Spa Culture section basically read like an tourist advertising pamphlet ? I respect that Hungary has some interesting thermal lakes, and some excellent historical spas and baths, but it seems to me that this section could really used a solid cleaning. phrawzty (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Demographics section

I will work on the section "Demographics" based on the layout of the respective sections in the articles Germany, France, Romania etc. Squash Racket (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Motto

Valami nagyokos szórakozik és beírta mottónak, hogy "Ne fürdjé' le". Ideje lenne kijavítani!

Some wiseguy is having fun with this page and wrote "Don't take a shower" as Hungary's motto, it should be corrected. User:Neonknights (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2008 (CET)

Cultural Centre

"The Kingdom of Hungary ... at various points was regarded as one of the cultural centers of the Western world."

Is there citation or room for expansion available here please?

Tomscambler (talk) 19:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Map of user "Dajes13"

Despite a perfectly accurate and internationally accepted map of Europe, user "Dajes13" continues to impose his own homemade maps on this page. This is unacceptable.

1. A vast majority of the world does not recognize Kosovo as independent from Serbia. The UN and all the other international organizations do not recognize Kosovo as separate either.

2. A map that includes an independent Kosovo goes directly against the spirit of Wikipedia's own article on Kosovo, which recognizes Kosovo as de jure part of Serbia.

Therefore, I warn user "Dajes13" that if he continues to replace the official wikipedia map of Europe with his own homemade maps that display a clear political agenda, I will report him to the proper Wikipedia authorities.

--A.Molnar (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Hungary

The author of the article on Hungary deliberately ignores and deletes the fact that Hungary became independent in Nov. 1918, leaving the false impression that Hungary was an independent country for 1000 years, which is ridiculous. The Treaty of Trianon is presented from a single-minded revisionist point of view. It attempts to get sympathy for Hungary which was “dismembered”. Yet, according to the revisionist logic, Austria would have lost more than Hungary, i.e. 75% of its former territory whereas UK about 90% when the colonies were abandoned. No mention is made of the peoples of the Austria-Hungary which were elated to be freed from the “dungeon of nations” as the country was dubbed. The article also tries to extol the exploits of the Austro-Hungarian army which was notoriously ineffective and humiliated on all fronts. Only the intervention of the German army and in some cases also the assistance of the Bulgarian and Ottoman armies saved the Austro-Hungarian army from defeat and annihilation. The Hungarian army proved its real worth when it was routed by the Romanian army which entered Budapest in Aug. 1919. This feat is denigrated by Hungarian revisionists who claim that the Romanian troops pillaged the country. They also claim this was the reason why Hungary wasn’t obligated to pay war reparations to Romania. In effect the reason is due to the fact that Romania declared war on Austria-Hungary and also obtained territories from Hungary after the war, which were legitimized by the Treaty of Trianon in accordance with the principle of self-determination. Both the Romanian and German population in Transylvania voted for the unification of the region with Romania, a fact ominously omitted by the revisionist who writes the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudiuionescu (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The land before 10th century

I'd like to note, that there is a important mistake in an article, in part “The land before AD896” and “Medieval Hungary”. From around 5th -6th century, the territory of modern-day Slovakia and Hungary was settled by slavic tribes – Old Slovaks. Samo's Empire was here in the 7th century. A Slavic state, known as the Principality of Nitra, arose in the 8th century and its ruler Pribina had the first known Christian church in central Europe consecrated by 828. Pribina's next residence was in Blatnohrad ( castle next to Balatón ). Together with neighboring Moravia, the principality formed the core of the Great Moravian Empire from 833. The high point of this Slavonic empire came with the arrival of Saints Cyril and Methodius in 863, during the reign of Prince Rastislav, and the territorial expansion under King Svatopluk I. Mojmír II was the last king of the Great Moravian Empire . After the disintegration of the Great Moravian Empire in the early 10th century, the Hungarians gradually annexed the territory of the present-day Hungaria and Slovakia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.196.82 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing discussions from talk page

First of all it's against WP policies from what I understand, second if it's obviously not against the WP policies (spam or insulting material) it shouldn't be removed only becaue you don't like the content -- that has a specific name: "censorship" and I would be sad to see this on Wikipedia. Thanks. man with one red shoe (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:TALKPAGE:

Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles and the views of reliable published sources. Talk pages are useful such that they may contain information that is not on the article, but such information is often unverified and thus unreliable. Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.

(Bolding not mine.) Squash Racket (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The two discussions above are about the material in the article, this seems reasonable for me (even though I don't agree with the rants), if you want you can rebuke or just ignore them, but simply removing things that you don't like should not fly on Wikipedia as long the discussions are about the article. Besides, if you look in this very page there are many other opinions, it's not only referenced material, however, only discussions that don't seem to appeal to Hungarian nationalists are removed, that's as I said, censorship. man with one red shoe (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

These are not "discussions", because I don't see answers. Even though you don't agree with those, you keep readding them multiple times. I won't remove them, but I wouldn't judge those who do, because the WP guideline (not policy) seems to support their view. Where else did you see similar personal views and who objected against removing those? Hungarian nationalists? Squash Racket (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

They talk about how sources are interpreted, it's a legitimate content in any talk page from what I can gather. man with one red shoe (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see them mentioning any sources... Squash Racket (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I said, they talk about how sources are interpreted in the article, for example one starts with "I'd like to note, that there is a important mistake in an article", you can say "no, this is not a mistake" you can ignore it but removing it is simply censorship. man with one red shoe (talk) 16:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

And I think you didn't understand parts of these comments were inflammatory, offensive and that is NOT supported on WP. But as I said I won't remove them, though I fully understand those who do. Squash Racket (talk) 17:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Inflamatory because they don't agree with your POV (because otherwise they seem reasonable civilized)? So basically what you are supporting here is removing discussions that don't agree with your specific POV. That's the exact point of censorship. man with one red shoe (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If the throwaway IP/account uses an offensive wording, then they won't encourage a cooperative attitude. If someone deliberately uses phrases that he knows are offensive (besides being POV) that won't encourage an answer which would be the goal of an article talk page. That's why I think it is you who still doesn't understand what's the problem here. Squash Racket (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think that anonymous contribution on Wikipedia should be banned (but this is a personal opinion) as long as Wikipedia accepts anonymous contribution you can't remove something that you don't like on the basis that's added by an anon IP. Principles... strange things, aren't they? man with one red shoe (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Principles strange things...aren't they?

True. Only I cited the guideline, you cited your opinion about what may be removed and what not... Squash Racket (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

"Article talk pages are provided for discussion of the content of articles" I fail to see how thise discussions are not about the content of the article. See editing others' comments I don't think there's anything there that says that you can edit (or even more, remove) the comments of others because you don't like their point of view. man with one red shoe (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The talk page is here for discussion on how to improve the article. So far you made unrelated comments here, soapboxed, used it as a forum to discuss general wiki-wide issues like generalities regarding all talkpages. The only purpose of this talk page is suggestions on improving the article, rants and soapboxing are routinely removed, this thread will also be removed after it's conclusion. If you don't like it you can keep reverting and face the consequences, anyhow this is not the place to discuss it. Hobartimus (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I discuss about something relevant to this talk page, not generalities. Content from this talk page is removed, you should not remove other people's comments as long as they are not against the rules only because you don't like their point of view. That's it. Stop threatening me (including on my talk page), if you have a problem with what I say or do take it with an admin. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages).
• Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable; please read WP:ATTACK#Removal of text and WP:CIVIL#Removal of uncivil comments before removing anything.

Just an example: a "revisionist writing this article" is uncivil and directly attacking editors instead of inviting them for discussion. I hope you see that. I checked out WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages and I do NOT think these comments are compliant with it.
But: these are just guidelines, just like WP:TALKPAGE. Squash Racket (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

• So, is this not relevant to improving the article? Is this a personal attack or exhibits incivility? On which ground do you support removing this comment?

I'd like to note, that there is a important mistake in an article, in part “The land before AD896” and “Medieval Hungary”. From around 5th -6th century, the territory of modern-day Slovakia and Hungary was settled by slavic tribes – Old Slovaks. Samo's Empire was here in the 7th century. A Slavic state, known as the Principality of Nitra, arose in the 8th century and its ruler Pribina had the first known Christian church in central Europe consecrated by 828. Pribina's next residence was in Blatnohrad ( castle next to Balatón ). Together with neighboring Moravia, the principality formed the core of the Great Moravian Empire from 833. The high point of this Slavonic empire came with the arrival of Saints Cyril and Methodius in 863, during the reign of Prince Rastislav, and the territorial expansion under King Svatopluk I. Mojmír II was the last king of the Great Moravian Empire . After the disintegration of the Great Moravian Empire in the early 10th century, the Hungarians gradually annexed the territory of the present-day Hungaria and Slovakia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.196.82 (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know enough history to appreciate the truth value of this paragraph, if it's not true you can ignore it or you can show where the problem is, I still don't find anything in the guidelines that can apply to edit or remove this comment. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have a strange feeling that you are not here for anything else but to disrupt and you for some odd reason looking to start a fight here. If you would be right in your interpretation of the policies there would be plenty of other people who agree with you and the issue resolve itself. Instead you constantly edit war, abuse automated tools to do it, now open a thread after it was clearly pointed out that the talk page is only for discussing improvements, you make a point to discuss anything but improvements, you never suggested a single change, improvement to the article never even displayed an interest in the article and while you add no value you are wasting other's time with your edit warring. After a point this will need to stop. Hobartimus (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the somewhat distorted history of the territory now known as Slovakia (according to a POV). It still doesn't seem to be compliant with WP:TALK#How to use article talk pages on this talk page.

BTW Hobartimus is right, that thread should be removed from here if you don't mind as it is not improving this article and is about general issues. Squash Racket (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look in the history the last revert was not done by me, so there are other people who agree with my point of view. Second, this is not about me, please stop talking about my person or I will consider this a personal attack. As for automatic tools, I simply didn't know that it marks the revert as "minor" I certainly didn't have the intention to fly under the radar, I clearly explained in the edit summary why I reverted and I opened this discussion too to make it clear that everybody knows. But let's get to facts, why would you remove the quote that I posted above, on which ground? To me it looks perfectly legitimate comment in a talk page. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Having an opinion is one thing I have opinions myself but there is a difference in simply having an opinion and suddenly starting edit wars and threads. You never expressed an interest in this article, never improved it yet you come here to edit war over whether to remove trolling or not (you yourself used "trollish" as the description for the comments). What are your reasons for this? What is your sudden interest in keeping those "trollish" comments at such an effort. You devoted more energy/edits to this than anything else in the past few days, certainly more than to article improvement, it is only fair that we'd like some explanation regarding your actions here. You say this is not to "start something" I believe you if you say so (though thus far you refused to state it, only that it's "not about you") if that's not the case, what is? What the reason for your extraordinary interest in using this talk page for anything but the improvement of the "Hungary" article? And you do this after all policies were cited and clearly showed that you act against the rules? Hobartimus (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's simply not true, take a look, a simple example: [6] And please stop judging my motivations, this is not about me, this is about removing comments from talk page. BTW, I posted this to Admin's notice board, I'd like and admin to take a look at this discussion and this removal of comments issue, let's wait for other opinions. man with one red shoe (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Again you escalating the issue shows that you have some strong reason, strong motive for doing this. If you read the comment carefully you will realize that nobody is "judging your motivations" I am asking, what is your motivation? It was asked now multiple times and you refuse to answer the question, what is your reason for wanting to keep comments at such trouble that you yourself described as "trollish"? Hobartimus (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I expressed my motivations in the first post in this thread and in the edit summaries, I'm against censorship, I don't think that removing a comment that you don't agree with is anything else but censorship. You might have different motives and I won't ask you about yours in a challenging way, I just expressed my opinion that this is censorship and it shouldn't happen, if an admin says otherwise I will cease the discussion immediately. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So you say that removing "trollish" comments is censorship? You yourself call them "trollish". Did you read any of the Wikipedia policies our guidelines regarding this question? Did any of them say to post "trollish" comments that have nothing to do with improving the article? Did the guidelines and policies say that the preferred procedure is to edit war to repeatedly reinsert said "trollish" comments, start a long discussion unrelated to improving the article, bring the question to admins [7] and noticeboards [8] in order to achieve keeping the "trollish" comments? Did any of the policies and guidelines say that? Do you feel the article was improved in this long process that you followed through? Hobartimus (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the right to have opinions about comments, however I don't have the right to impose my opinions on others. That's what you don't seem to undestand about censorship, I have the right to think that some things are shitty, I don't have the right to impose my yardstick on others, and by the way if similar comments were made in talk:Romania or talk:Slovakia claiming that the articles have anti-Hungarian bias and I don't know what facts are not accurate, I would have the same position. Again, it's principle, you don't delete other people's posts. Period. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Again you state your personal opinion on "princpile" and "censorship" but you have failed to produce the wikipedia guideline that says that one should insert "trollish", unrelated comments into talk pages. I asked if you read the wikipedia rules on the subject but you have not answered the question. Is there anything in any guideline, any material at all that supports keeping trollish comments on talk pages? Anything that supports your interpretation? Hobartimus (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I provided the guideliness for when you can modify other people's posts, in those guidliness there's is no such thing as "you can remove posts that you don't agree with". I made my case, I will not respond to other questions, I will wait for an admin to weigh it. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It's my opinion that your approach is not reasonable. What I mean is when looking at your contributions at the time I write this comment almost all of them in the last few weeks are dedicated to this issue of keeping inappropriate comments here that you admit are "trollish". Hobartimus (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the idea that a talk page item that addresses the article but offends others, still should be left here. This is not just a two-editor issue. As far as offensive attacks, there are other means to address those issues, short of deleting the entire post which has useful information in it. Wikipedia dislikes censorship worse than attacks. Having said that, a discussion item that is designed mainly offend someone and is not germane to the article should be removed. That is different from the material above, however IMO. Student7 (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia dislikes censorship worse than attacks." Not true. WP:TALKPAGE is a guideline, WP:NPA is a policy. But even WP:TALKPAGE clearly states:

Talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views

. Squash Racket (talk) 06:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion ran it's course this will need to be dealt with the usual way. When someone posts vandalism, trolling inappropriate content whatever first they are told not to then gently warned then warned etc etc. It doesn't matter if you write it yourself, copy from a messageboard or copy somewhere else, when you post something you ultimately post it, you are responsible for it's contents. Hobartimus (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Student7 (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

As a general guideline, it is not desirable to remove material from a talk page (see WP:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments) unless, of course, the comments are obvious vandalism. Further, it does not matter whether the editor is an IP or a logged-in user. Wikipedia does not distinguish between the two for article building purposes. If you disagree with comments on the talk page, you can respond appropriately or choose to ignore them (the latter is probably more appropriate in this case). Regards and thanks for requesting a third opinion!

• Deleting material not relevant to improving the article
• Removing personal attacks and incivility

These two were somehow left out from the valid deletion reasons, but I found them at the link provided. It also makes clear that the removable category is much broader than "obvious vandalism". Hobartimus (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Except in the case of obvious vandalism, it is generally impolite to delete material from the talk page (note that these are guidelines, not policy). While I agree that wikipedia is not a forum is a valid reason to be piqued by material such as the one in question, frankly, ignoring the material, or politely rebutting it, would have saved a whole lot of bandwidth and not prompted an edit war on the talk page. Deleting talk page content almost always leads to inflamed tempers, which is never a good thing. --Regents Park (sniff out my socks) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Map

I had a little controversy with the user Squash Racket concernig this map. More precisely: we couldn't agree about the description of the map. See here the 2 versions:

1) Squash Racket's version: Ethnic map of Hungary (without Croatia) taking population density into account (census 1910)

2) My (Olahus's) version: Linguistic map of Hungary according to the 1910-census (without Croatia; the areas with a low population density are not represented)

I have some objections concerning Squash Racket's version because this map doesn't definately look like a population density map. A population density map represents all the areas, showing at the same time how many persons live per square mile or square kilometer in all the areas represented in the map. This map represents only the areas with a density that is higher than a certain limit. See here how density map looks like. Or see here a population density and ethnic map at the same time. --Olahus (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, it represents all people so , all people from all areas are represented and their weight in the map equals exactly to their weight. The whole issue is quite complex best to leave detailed explanation to another article, this is a summary article. In a short caption "proportional representation of the 1910 census" because if say Germans were exactly 10% in the census they are exactly 10% in the map everyone is accurately represented. Hobartimus (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The usage of the term "proportional" is a good proposal. But let us talk about the necessity of the "red map". Why is this map necessary, if the author intended to represent the proportion? Proportions are represented in charts. This charts are saying more that the "red map". The necessity of a map is to make a visual representation of an area. Or, the "red map" deforms the reality by presenting "empty areas" in order to maintain a certain proportion - a duty of a chart not of a map. Not to say about the colouts chosen by the author: a strong nuance of red for the Hungarians, a pale nuance of violet for the Rumanians, a pale orange for the Germans, a pale gress for the Slovaks... --Olahus (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Olahus' version because the map has blank spots. Btw, sorry for the mess of late reverts, I reverted myself only find out that somebody else tried to add something and then when I tried to correct I found again in the same situation. man with one red shoe (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)