Talk:Austria-Hungary

Requested move 21 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The issue of dashes vs. hyphens is typically a stylistic one, with RSes following their own style guides. I don't think getting out the calipers to measure exactly how long a dash/hyphen is in an RS is particularly helpful in this case. Additionally, I think citing MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES is a case of the tail wagging the dog.

The real substance of the discussion basically comes down to "were Austria and Hungary two states in a personal union, or one unified state consisting of two [or more] nations?". If it's the former, then we should use an em dash (q.v. Poland–Lithuania, Denmark–Norway); if it's the latter, then we should use a hyphen (q.v. North Rhine-Westphalia). There's no consensus (especially in this discussion, and I suspect outwith the discussion too) either way, and as such, the process is to follow the status quo ante. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 17:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Austria-Hungary → Austria–Hungary – MOS:ENDASH, following these multiple discussions:

• Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 1#Dash inconsistency
• Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 2#Dashes
• Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 7#Hyphen_or_en_dash

2001:4451:824F:B700:D5D3:2171:B3EF:E335 (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support per MOS:DASH. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES (which is part of MOS:ENDASH!) says it should be a hyphen. Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 2#Dashes unanimously concluded that it should be a hyphen. Furius (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  Plus WP:COMMONNAME: sources consistently use a hyphen rather than an en-dash: [1] [2], [3], [4] (books), [5], [6] (other encyclopedias). Furius (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Regarding the reference to Austria-Hungary in MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES the MOS says it's hyphenated because it was the name of a single jurisdiction during its 1867–1918 existence. But it wasn't a single jurisdiction. It was two distinct entities/jurisdictions. It also says Use an en dash between the names of nations or nationalities when referring to an association between them. which actually is really the description of Austria-Hungary: two separate states in association. I think the MOS has misunderstand the nature of Austria-Hungary. DeCausa (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

  I also note that one of (just) four supporters in Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive 2#Dashes said The dash is being misused in this case per WP:DASH. If we are referring to one unified country, it should be a hyphen. We would only use a dash if both Austria and Hungary were separate entities, which of course in this context they are not. which is just a misunderstanding of what Austria-Hungary was. DeCausa (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  They managed to enter World War I as one entity. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  No more (and arguably less) than did Britain and Canada. DeCausa (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

  As they were never referred to as "Britain-Canada" as though they were a single entity, that's irrelevant, isn't it? Also, Britain and Canada weren't equal partners. If Canada was obliged to enter the war out of fealty to Britain whether Canada wanted to or not, then Britain was calling the shots. Which country was calling the shots in Europe, Austria or Hungary? Neither. They acted as a union, one with the name "Austria-Hungary". They also weren't two entities coincidentally making all the same decisions but acted as a collective. You don't see "Austria and Hungary coincidentally entered the war at exactly the same date and time", it's "Austria-Hungary entered the war". Largoplazo (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Exactly. Austria-Hungary was also considered as a single entity, because it was basically a union of Austria and Hungary. Also, the map Wikipedia uses to highlight Austria-Hungary in Europe doesn't highlight 2 (or 3) different states, it highlights just one, and many sources state Austria-Hungary as if it were a single entity. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 14:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  For clarity, I'm neutral/don't care whether it's a hyphen or endash. Just pointing out those statements (for those that do care) are incorrect. DeCausa (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  I guess it depends on how you're defining "entity"; there are plenty of entities (EU, UN, HRE) made up of multiple states. Throughout this article, we talk about A-H as an entity (e.g., saying that it was the "second largest country in Europe" in the lead). That's quite different from something like "France–Britain rivalry" (the example in the MOS for an en-dash), which is about two unconnected states. Furius (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Possibly, I don't actually draw any conclusions about hyphen v endash - as I say I'm in the "not bothered" camp. But the statement in the MOS that A-H is a "single jurisdiction" is categorically incorrect. There's also some loose wording in this article - it's not a particularly good one. For instance, someone's put in the opening sentence the highly dubious statement that it was "a multinational state" (my emphasis). The reality was that post 1867 it was two states with a shared monarch and one or two other shared institutions. If that makes an "entity", then it's an entity. But it certainly wasn't a "single jurisdiction" or "one unified country". I think calling it "a country" at all is a stretch although "country" is notoriously fluid. DeCausa (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Is Polish–Lithuanian union, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, Polish–Swedish union, Denmark–Norway and Sweden–Finland wrong? Not making an WP:OTHERCONTENT point - just curious. DeCausa (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  With the adjectives, I read MOS as saying they should be en-dashes. But I can't see why there should be one rule for AH and another for DN and SF, unless there's a common name argument... The inconsistency suggests that we ought to post a note to the MOS talk page to get wider input. Furius (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support - A wider dash, is preferable. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

  Could you explain why you support this and why you want a wider dash? 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 14:02, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This should definitely by a hyphen, not a dash. Walrasiad (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is not about a juxtaposition between Austria and Hungary, but instead about a time when Austria and Hungary were essentially the same country. JIP | Talk 13:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES (which is part of MOS:ENDASH itself (how did you miss that)!) 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 18:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC) Strong oppose and support closing this move request instantly. MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES literally says that a dash is wrong, using Austria-Hungary as an example. Same's with Serbo-Croatian or Winston-Salem. Also, as mentioned by User:Furius, Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive_2#Dashes unanimously agrees that a dash should not be used, and that a hyphen should be used instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jalapeño (talk • contribs) 19:19, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything directly relevant in MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. Can you please quote the relevant aspect? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

"Wrong: Austria–Hungary" Furius (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Very directly relevant. Furius (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@BarrelProof and @Furius: It literally says in MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES that a dash is wrong. "Wrong: Austria–Hungary; the hyphenated Austria-Hungary was the name of a single jurisdiction during its 1867–1918 existence"

It should be a hyphen, not a dash. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 19:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It's the most directly relevant it can get. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 19:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

And on top of that, look at this: Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive_2#Dashes unanimously concludes that Austria-Hungary shouldn't use a dash. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 19:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yet MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES takes it's position on Austria-Hungary, as its says, because it's a "single jurisdiction" when it wasn't and the 4 opinions in Talk:Austria-Hungary/Archive_2#Dashes is based on statements like Austria-Hungary was "one unified country", which it wasn't either. Maybe it should be a hyphen rather than endash, but not for the reasons given in either of those two links. DeCausa (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know how I missed that. I suppose this RM is to consider the validity of that instruction. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

For now the only argument is that Austria-Hungary wasn't a single jurisdiction, but a connection between 2 countries, and as such it should use an endash. "For people and things identifying with multiple nationalities, use a hyphen when using the combination adjectivally [...]" implies that Austria-Hungary should use a hyphen, since it's a thing (country) identifying with multiple nationalities (i.e. Austrian, Hungarian and (sometimes) Croatian). 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 21:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Well, this title is not "using the combination adjectivally", is it? Obviously, it's one of the examples given, but do the instructions outside of the example exactly cover this case? That sentence seems to be primarily about the "Indian-American scientist" and "popular with Indian Americans" cases. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The full guidance is "hyphen when using the combination adjectivally and a space when they are used as nouns", in which case we'd have "Austria Hungary" (but since this form is used by absolutely no one, it would be precluded by WP:COMMONNAME), so the relevant piece of guidance is probably the earlier statement "Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities." It's a bit unclear why the MOS has the Austria-Hungary example where it appears...

And you're of course right, BarrelProof, that we can reconsider whether that rule should apply in this instance. I've posted a comment to the MOS talk page to invite comment from style guide experts, who might be able to clarify the rationale of the MOS's statements Furius (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, if this example is going to stay in the MOS, it should be moved to that other list under the sentence about "compounded proper names of single entities". It doesn't fit where it currently is. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. RS do not usually use a dash in this case. And this isn't a case where we can just enforce a house style as if we can decide how the two elements should be joined or what their relationship is. Austria-Hungary was a single jurisdiction as far as international law was concerned. It was not formed from the unification of Austria and Hungary but from a constitutional change to the Austrian Empire in 1867. "Austria-Hungary" was a term in use, in English, at the time. See here. It cannot be compared to, e.g., Denmark–Norway. Srnec (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would challenge that they were "a single jurisdiction". A jurisdiction normally means a legal system. See, for example, Pearson, Raymond (2005). "Hungary:A State Truncated, A Nation Dismembered". Europe and Ethnicity: The First World War and Contemporary Ethnic Conflict. p. 88.: According to the new [1867] constitution, all governmental functions other than the supreme military, diplomatic and dynastic competencies (which were reserved as imperial) were devolved under the separate jurisdictions of 'Cisleithania' (Austria) and 'Transleithania' (Hungary). DeCausa (talk) 08:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  Austria-Hungary joined the war as a single entity. Politically, Austria-Hungary was regarded as a single entity. Also, per WP:COMMONNAME, most sources consistently use a hyphen, so we should use a hyphen as well. Even the source you used uses a hyphen in Austria-Hungary. 🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 13:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  A good example of why Austria-Hungary should be hyphenated is Winston-Salem. They originated from the towns Winston and Salem, and after some time, they started to be referred to as one town, and after a referendum, it became official. Very similar case with Austria-Hungary, except that it was with countries instead of towns. See the similarities? Winston-Salem slowly became referred to as one town, and then it became official. Austria-Hungary slowly became referred to as one country, and then they joined World War 1 as a single entity.🌶️Jalapeño🌶️ Don't click this link! 14:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's nearly the opposite of what happened with Austria-Hungary... Furius (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The hyphenated version is the common name of the entity, the name by which is was referred to in writing at the time, the name under which it was known internationally. This is notwithstanding the degree of separate sovereignty the subentities Austria and Hungary had within the union. I see no reason to treat it different from North Rhine-Westphalia or Rhineland-Palatinate or, as Jalapeño mentioned just above, Winston-Salem. In addition, this example is specifically spelled out at MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. Even WP:BOLD probably doesn't contemplate overstepping a guideline in a case that's been singled out for attention in the guideline. So this isn't the right place to hold this discussion anyway. It would have to be held there. Largoplazo (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2023 (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.

Post-RM commentary

Austria and Hungary were not a country. There were no common citizenship neither passport. In international law, they were separate countries, that's why they had different peace treaties.

Read this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867#Terms

With the exception of the territory of Bosnian Condominium, Austria and Hungary did not form a common sovereign territory in international law. (Ie. Kingdom of Hungary and Empire of Austria were different countries) Thus regarding to territorial changes during peace treaties, the Empire of Austria and Kingdom of Hungary had to act independently as independent countries: A delegate from the Austrian parliament had right to sign peace treaties related to territorial changes of the Austrian Empire, and respectively, a delegate from the Hungarian parliament had right to sign peace treaties regarding to territorial changes of the Kingdom of Hungary.[48] See: Treaty of Saint-Germain and Treaty of Trianon

Austria–Hungary, as a common entity, had no jurisdiction and legislative power, which was shaped by the fact that there was no common parliament. The common diplomatic and military affairs were managed by delegations from the Imperial Council and the Hungarian parliament. The delegations had 60 members from the Imperial Council, and 60 members from the Hungarian parliament, and the ratios of various political fractions exactly and proportionally mirrored their own political parties of their parliaments. The members of the delegations from the two parliaments had no right to give speeches, to debate, or introduce new ideas during the meetings; thus they were nothing more than the extended arms of their own parliaments. The only function of the delegates was to cast their votes according to the previously made decisions of their political factions in the Austrian and the Hungarian parliaments. All common decisions had to be ratified by the Austrian parliament to be valid on Austrian territory, and by the Hungarian parliament to be valid on the territory of Kingdom of Hungary.[47] The Austrian and Hungarian delegations hold their joint meeting in Vienna in every odd year, and in Pest in every even year.--Pharaph (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

They had separate peace treaties at the end of WWI because of the Dissolution of Austria-Hungary. Earlier treaties were made by the whole empire as a unit - see Category:Treaties_of_Austria-Hungary for a list. Furius (talk) 20:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

But this is WP:NOTAFORUM; what action do you want to be taken? Furius (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Clearly, this is a continuation of the issues discussed in the dash-versus-hyphen question. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

You have reading comprehension problems.

The cited text exactly wrote only about territorial changes of E. Austria and/or K. of Hungary.--The only true Austro-Hungarian territory in Europe was the Bosnian condominium.Pharaph (talk) 06:32, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that last remark is not a continuation of the issues discussed in the dash-versus-hyphen question. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Austria and Hungary were a true common entity only during the era of military dictatorship (1849-1867). For further info and references see: Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 article.--Pharaph (talk) 20:19, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Please don't add any flags to this page

Austria-hungary had no offical national flag, people think that the civil ensign is the national flag of austria-hungary but that flag was only flown by the austro-hungarian navy, the three national flags that were used were the black gold flag, the kingdom of hungary flag, and the croatian flag. Do not add any of these flags to not escalate conflict, to not display fake information, and stop making the world think that the civil ensign is the national flag. Plus we can just discuss this in the "Flags of Austria-hungary" page. Austrianboi (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

do agree. however shouldn't we add the flags of Cisleithania and Hungary instead? although it isn't the official flags of Austria-Hungary im really sure it would be a great idea. so the captions of the flags would be "Flags of Cisleithania and Hungary" ZomRobWiki (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be a great idea. There was ongoing disruption and edit-warring at this article for many years between those that took your view and those wanting the civil ensign. An RfC was closed on it in 2021 as "no consensus" and the current "no flags" compromise has maintained the "peace" since then. Opening the issue again will be disruptive and unproductive. DeCausa (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

ok thanks, I just realised that there had been a ton of conflicts in this article, I saw it from yt last time ZomRobWiki (talk) 03:04, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It's partially the fault of Wikipedia that the civil ensign was ever known about. Thus it's likely best that it remains protected. PinkBunnyBun (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

content dispute about why the 1848 revolution broke out

User:DeCausa stated that the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 had broken out due to the fantasy, that Hungary wished "greater autonomy". The war of 1848-49 was broken out for greater democracy, due to the unconstitutional arbitrary revoke of the April laws by Franz Joseph , who was just an usurper in Hungary by the grace of Russian Tzar before his coronation. Kingdom of Hungary as a state had no reason to change its status, because it was not part of Austrian Empire before the 1848 revolution. The Hungarian state had higher status before the 1848 revolution than after the Ausgleich of 1867. See the "Historical background" section of the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 article.--Pharaph (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

From the 1848 Hungarian revolution, when Magyars revolted from the Austro-Hungarian Empire to request their own political self-government[7]. On the 3 March 1848, Lajos Kossuth, as leader of the radical-nationalist Magyar nobility in the Hungarian diet called for the liberation of Hungary from Austrian tutelage...Magyars merely seized upon the fall of the (somewhat unconstitutional) Metternich regime to reassert the Hungarian right of self-government[8]. The point is that until Kossuth achieved the March/April Laws in 1848 Hungary was subservient to Austria for finances, budget foreign policy etc but with those laws - but those laws were achieved because of the granting of Hungarian autonomy in 1848.[9]. DeCausa (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. You forget the most important element in the study of history: Chronology and chronological order of the events.

Your Kossuth quote is nothing to do with the First phase of the events of the year of 1848, the Revolution, but the reaction against an 1849 event, the >>> March Constitution (Austria) <<<. The arbitrary and unlawful Austrian march constitution of 1849 questioned the Hungarian state's right to exist.

Since the status of Hungarian state was not even a question in the 1848 events, when the revolution broke out, because pre-1848 Kingdom of Hungary was enough independent. The second phase of the conflict started due to the new arbitrary Austrian march constitution of 1849.

So it is important not to confuse what happened on March 1848,(when the revolution started for democracy), with the events of 1849, when the mere existence of the Kingdom of Hungary was questioned by the Habsburg's new arbitrary constitution. Because the events of 1849 transformed into a "to be or not to be" type of question for Hungary.--Pharaph (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

That's WP:OR which we don't take into account. DeCausa (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you directly cite leaders or press at the time emphasizing a drive for democracy rather than autonomy? Remsense聊 14:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not original research, but the opinion of special experts on LEGAL history.

In a debate about references, the opinion of a general historian dealing with the period cannot have the same weight as a specialist scholar of legal history who is researcher of the period.

As it turned out with the help of chronology, You speaking about the events of 1849, and not about the events 1848.

The Causes of the 1849 events. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_Constitution_(Austria)

You can find the detailed status of Kingdom Hungary before the revolution in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867#1526%E2%80%931848

It is not possible to argue rationally like a real adult until you simply neglect (or you did not even read) the content of these two fundamentally important articles and the references found in these two articles. The legal historians' books in the references of these two articles say something completely different from what you want to say and interpret in this debate.--Pharaph (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you please name specific sources so that it is easier for people who are observing this discussion to meaningfully participate? The sources themselves, not just other articles. Remsense聊 15:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The two articles all well provided with references and sources. You just need to move the cursor of your mouse, click on the two articles, and watch the references after the statements/sentences of the article, you can even read them with the help of Google Books, URLs are also provided in the references. Even in the case if the direct URLs are not inserted in the references, all the sources are on the google books, with author, title ISBN and even the exact page numbers of the books.--Pharaph (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

No, sorry. The onus is explicitly on the person making the claims, which includes providing sources in discussions when asked. That facilitates easier discussions on public talk pages, like this one. It isn't a place for you to specifically shout at a specific person, it's a place for the community to engage in a discussion as frictionlessly as possible. Remsense聊 16:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I also suggest to read the April laws article and the 12 points which were the ruling principles of this laws, which clearly prove that the revolution broke out due to the demand of democracy. Let's don't forget, on 15 March of 1848, the main goal of the revolutionaries were the 12 points. Hungary was the third country (after France and Belgium) were laws were enacted about democratic parliamentary elections, with the widest suffrage of contemporary Europe, wider than contemporary UK.--Pharaph (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the leading, unsourced annotations on the text on the 12 points article, and the only source for the annotations on the april laws article is an official hungarian government website, which does not seem sufficient. Remsense聊 16:25, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pharaph, I suggest you read WP:CIRCULAR. Other Wikipedia articles are not relevant - particularly ones you have heavily edited to your POV. I've cited three WP:RS secondary sources. You've cited nothing but bluster. No one is going to pay any attention to what you have to say until you starting properly citing sources. Until you do so you are just putting forward a POV based on WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You can not copy (impossible) other Wikipedia materials/conteents to the discussions of talk pages, because the Wiki system does not allow that. Why can't you go to the linked wiki articles and read the reference books?--Pharaph (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Because I want to know exactly which texts we are looking at, to avoid confusion. All that's necessary are titles and authors, not a full citation. Remsense聊 17:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I will insist on page numbers or a link to a page. DeCausa (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

During the Middle Ages, the Duchy of Austria was an autonomous state within the Holy Roman Empire, governed by the House of Habsburg. In contrast, the Kingdom of Hungary was a sovereign state outside the empire. In 1526, Hungary was defeated and partially conquered by the Ottoman Empire. King Louis II of Hungary and Bohemia died young in the Battle of Mohács, leaving no legitimate heir. Consequently, Louis II’s brother-in-law, Ferdinand I of Habsburg, was elected King of Hungary by a rump Parliament in Pozsony (now Bratislava) in December 15261. The Ottomans were subsequently driven out of Hungary by the cooperation of international Western Christian forces led by Prince Eugene of Savoy between 1686 and 1699. From 1526 to 1804, Hungary was ruled by the Habsburg dynasty as kings of Hungary, but remained nominally and legally separate from the other lands of the Habsburg monarchy. Unlike other Habsburg-ruled areas, the Kingdom of Hungary had an old historic constitution[1], which limited the power of the Crown and had greatly increased the authority of the parliament since the 13th century. The Golden Bull of 1222 was one of the earliest examples of constitutional limits being placed on the powers of a European monarch[2], which was forced on the Hungarian king in much the same way King John of England was made to sign Magna Carta.

References:

1^ Robert Young (1995). Secession of Quebec and the Future of Canada. McGill-Queen's Press. p. 138. ISBN 9780773565470.

2^ Francis Fukuyama: What's Wrong with Hungary? https://www.the-american-interest.com/2012/02/06/whats-wrong-with-hungary/

The old Hungarian constitution and public law provisions made it legally impossible to involve and integrate the Kingdom of Hungary into a different state.[3] The Hungarian parliament, which emerged as the supreme legislative institution in the Kingdom of Hungary from the 1290s, was the most important political assembly since the 12th century.[4]

"The Diet had the lawful right to declare war and peace, and Hungary could have made peace with a power with which Austria was at war, if the kings had not falsified their oath by not assembling the Hungarian Parliament." [5]

The traditionally highly autonomous counties of Hungary posed a major obstacle in the construction of absolutism in Hungary. The counties were the centers of local public administration and local politics in Hungary, and they possessed a recognized right to refuse to carry out any “unlawful” (unconstitutional) royal orders. This made it possible to question the legality of a surprisingly high proportion of the royal orders which emanated from Vienna.[6]

References:

3^ Joshua Toulmin Smith (1861). Illustrations of the political and diplomatic relations of the independent Kingdom of Hungary; and of the interest that Europe has in the "Austrian Alliance.". W. Jeffs. pp. 19–23. https://books.google.com/books?id=CyxYAAAAcAAJ&dq=%22never+been+nor+are+a+part+of+the+Austrian+Empire%22&pg=PA19&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22never%20been%20nor%20are%20a%20part%20of%20the%20Austrian%20Empire%22&f=false

4^ Elemér Hantos: The Magna Carta of the English And of the Hungarian Constitution (1904)

5^ [From Kossuth's Speech at Copenhagen House, Nov. 3d, 1851.] https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10691/pg10691.html

6^ Carlile Aylmer Macartney (2014). The Habsburg Empire, 1790-1918. Faber & Faber. p. 29. ISBN 9780571306299. https://books.google.com/books?id=CCWXBAAAQBAJ&dq=habsburgs+comitatus+hungary+autonomous&pg=PT29&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=habsburgs%20comitatus%20hungary%20autonomous&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaph (talk • contribs) 18:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

In 1804, Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor, who also ruled the lands of the Habsburg monarchy, established the Empire of Austria, which included most of his so-called Erblande lands. However, the new Erblande term was not applied to the Kingdom of Hungary.[7]

Reference ^7: Michael Hochedlinger (2015). Austria's Wars of Emergence, 1683-1797. Routledge. p. XVII. ISBN 9781317887928. URL: https://books.google.com/books?id=X7pACwAAQBAJ&pg=PT17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaph (talk • contribs) 19:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Hungary was always considered a separate realm, and its status was affirmed by Article X, which was added to Hungary’s constitution in 1790 during the phase of the composite monarchy. The article described the state as a Regnum Independens. From the perspective of the Court since 1723, regnum Hungariae had been a hereditary province of the dynasty’s three main branches on both lines. From the perspective of the ország (the country), Hungary was regnum independens, a separate Land as stipulated by Article X of 1790. The Court reassured the diet that the assumption of the monarch’s newly adopted title (Emperor of Austria) did not affect the laws and the constitution on the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary in any sense.[8]

Reference 8. ."Zeilner, Franz (2008), Verfassung, Verfassungsrecht und Lehre des Öffentlichen Rechts in Österreich bis 1848: Eine Darstellung der materiellen und formellen Verfassungssituation und der Lehre des öffentlichen Rechts, Frankfurt am Main: Lang, p. 45

Thus, under the new arrangements, no Austrian imperial institutions were involved in its internal government.[9]

Reference ^9 Laszlo, Péter (2011), Hungary's Long Nineteenth Century: Constitutional and Democratic Traditions, Leiden, Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV, p. 6

URL: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Hungary_s_Long_Nineteenth_Century/PcwyAQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=orszag+and+empire+moved+on+different+planes&pg=PA6&printsec=frontcover

The Hungarian legal and judicial systems remained separate and independent from the unified legal and judicial systems of the other Habsburg-ruled areas. Consequently, the administration and structures of central government of the Kingdom of Hungary also remained separate from the Austrian administration and government until the 1848 revolution. Hungary was governed to a greater degree by the Council of Lieutenancy of Hungary (the Gubernium) in Pressburg (Pozsony) and, to a lesser extent, by the Hungarian Royal Court Chancellery in Vienna, which was independent of the Imperial Chancellery of Austria[10].

Reference ^10 Balázs, Éva H. Hungary and the Habsburgs, 1765–1800: An Experiment in Enlightened Absolutism. p. 320. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaph (talk • contribs) 19:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

In Hungary, the coronation of a new king was absolutely indispensable for his reign to begin, unlike in most Western European countries such as France and the United Kingdom, where the king’s reign began immediately upon the death of his predecessor. If the coronation was not properly executed, the Kingdom would remain “orphaned”. Even during the long personal union between the Kingdom of Hungary and other Habsburg-ruled areas, no Habsburg monarch could promulgate laws or exercise his royal prerogatives in the territory of Hungary until he had been crowned as King of Hungary[11]

^^11 Nemes, Paul (10 January 2000). "Hungary: The Holy Crown". Central Europe Review. Archived from the original on 11 May 2015. Retrieved 26 September 2008. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20150511145632/http://www.ce-review.org/00/1/nemes1.html

Since the Golden Bull of 1222, all Hungarian monarchs were required to take a coronation oath during the coronation procedure. The new monarchs had to agree to uphold the constitutional arrangement of the country, preserve the liberties of their subjects, and maintain the territorial integrity of the realm [12]

Reference ^12 András A. Gergely; Gábor Máthé (2000). The Hungarian state: thousand years in Europe: 1000–2000. Korona. p. 66. ISBN 9789639191792. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaph (talk • contribs) 20:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

You don't seem to realise that's not the point. There's two fundamental problems with what you've said:

1. It's rather like quoting the North Korean constitution to classify N Korea as a democracy. The sources I cited are about political reality. As one of them said (and which I quoted above) what Kossuth was trying to do in March 1848 was the "the liberation of Hungary from Austrian tutelage".
2. For Wikipedia what you have tried to do is WP:SYNTH and is not allowed. It doesn't directly address the issue. You can't say X is the position pre-1848 and therefore your view of what 1848 was about must be right. You need to produce a source that specifically says the objective of 1848 was "democracy" not "self-government". Simple as that. try again.

DeCausa (talk) 20:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Or rather, it's putting an equals sign between 'Hungary was not actually an integral part of Austria' with 'Hungary meaningfully already governed itself' Remsense聊 20:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrong. Kossuth was not against the Habsburgs at all in March 1848, in the era of the revolution. Let's don't forget The Hungarian revolution lasted only for two days (not years) between 15 and 16 of March , 1848. The full name of the conflict is After that the war of indenpendence was very slowly built up. Until around September, (Battle of Pákozd), the Hungarian government politiciand and public opinion was not even aware that the Habsburgs want a war and erase the April laws. They believed, that the dynasty accepted the democratic and societal reforms of the April laws. Kossuth was just a finance minister in the first government.

I think you like this Kossuth, but I think it would be better to read his simple Wikipedia article here: Lajos Kossuth.

LAJOS KOSSUTH SENT WORD ... Papers delivered on the occasion of the bicentenary of Kossuth’s birth

Edited by

lASZLO PETER, MARTYN RADY, PETER SHERWOOD

Hungarian Cultural Centre London School of Slavonic and East European Studies University College London

URL: https://archive.org/stream/SSEES0026/SSEES0026_djvu.txt

Quote: "When in Hungary, of course, he had been a consistent monarchist. In his famous speech of 3 March 1848, demanding a constitution for all parts of the Empire, he had referred to ‘our beloved dynasty’, saying that all the peoples of the Monarchy would offer their blood and lives for it (if not for the politicians of Vienna); indeed, he had lavished praise on the young Franz Joseph as the dynasty’s hope for the future. "

An important quote from Kossuth speech during the Viennese revolution on March 13

Hungarian statesman Pm. Lajos Batthyány was part of a delegation of Hungarian Statesman to Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria who was also King Ferdinand V of Hungary, that insisted Hungary’s government be supreme in its territory.

Lajos Kossuth, another Hungarian Statesman, gave a speech to the government where he appealed to the hope of the Habsburgs, the incoming emperor: “our beloved Archduke Franz Joseph” (then seventeen years old), to perpetuate the ancient glory of the dynasty by meeting half-way the aspirations of a free people.

Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. URL: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Kossuth,_Lajos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaph (talk • contribs) 22:19, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Are you serious? You're wasting everyone's time. DeCausa (talk) 07:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The distinction between "democracy" and "self-government" / "autonomy" in this context seems to me to be extremely slight. Furius (talk) 16:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not, though. In the context of the upheavals of the mid-19th century, how people thought about organizing nation-states wrt democracy versus autonomy was extremely important. People who believed in one did not necessarily believe in the other. Remsense聊 16:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but Pharaph's not defined what they mean by "democracy" at all. Pharaph seems by "democracy" to mean that they wanted Franz Josef stop behaving like an autocrat. As I understand it Pharaph's objection to "self-government/autonomy" is totally based on the claim that since Hungary was not part of Austria (which everyone accepts), it already had dejure self-government. But this doesn't follow. It is completely logical to say that the Hungarians wanted greater defacto autonomy from their own king. But it really is very unclear what Pharaph wants... Furius (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

We are in agreement! Remsense聊 17:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Democracy in this case means laws, a legal frame, which allow it functioning. It is the April laws. The war was started by the Habsburgs, because they did not want to accept the April laws. Reference: https://www.ohio.edu/chastain/ac/aprilaw.htm István Deák: The Lawful Revolution. Louis Kossuth and the Hungarians, 1848-1849. New York: Columbia University Press, 1979.

--Pharaph (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The April Laws, as stated in your source, are the framework for a constitutional monarchy. That is not the same thing as a democracy. An annual 'national assembly' does not by itself make a democracy, which only means "a government where general population holds power".
This system may be significantly more democratic than the previous one in theory or practice (if it were allowed to manifest), but that does not mean 1) that it was what analysts would call a democracy full-stop, nor does it mean 2) that is what the intent was behind it, which is the crux of this whole discussion. Remsense聊 19:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The antithesis of democracy is the dictatorship. Dictatorships are authoritarian or totalitarian and they can be classified as military dictatorships, one-party dictatorships, personalist dictatorships, or absolute monarchies. Since the Habsburg power relied on their absolutism, which they wanted to introduce in an even harsher form, we can call it as a dictatorship.

So, groups of people or even countries are all fighting for democracy who are working to overthrow absolutism (ie dictatorship) to transform it into a democratic constitutional monarchy or a democratic republic. It is no coincidence that Kossuth was seen as the physical embodiment of democracy, and (it is no exaggeration) as a demigod-like figure by both the British and the Americans, when Kossuth visited these countries during his emigration. --Pharaph (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That is a very specific ideological position that is not remotely universal, that is a conclusion you're coming to by synthesizing sources, it is not what any of the sources say. That's it. Just say exactly what the sources say, and no more. If you can't get what Wikipedia means with that in its policies, then I cannot help further. Remsense聊 21:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no point continuing this. Suffice to say no one supports Pharaph's policy-free views. DeCausa (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Lajos Kossuth got a bust in the US Capitol, as a man who fight for democracy.

http://www.americanhungarianfederation.org/docs/AHF_USCongress_KossuthStatue_Dedication.pdf

There are hundreds of British and American books mention Kossuth, as a statesman who fought for democracy against the Habsburg absolutism. See google Books search: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22louis+kossuth%22+%22for+democracy%22&client=firefox-b-d&sca_esv=581513559&tbm=bks&sxsrf=AM9HkKnNvWHhrNEO1FhHeofxL7xK2SbAEg:1699710078410&ei=foRPZZfWGOnAi-gPgbmT4AQ&start=10&sa=N&ved=2ahUKEwiXjce7ibyCAxVp4AIHHYHcBEwQ8NMDegQIDxAY&biw=2081&bih=1635&dpr=1

And Hundreds of contemporary British and American newspapers and magazines. Let's don't forget that Kossuth and Garibaldi were far the most popular foreign born men in 19th century UK and US. They were idolized in the English speaking world.--Pharaph (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't care, you are not listening. If it is so obvious and so irrefutable, there must be a plethora of secondary sources emphasizing this particular point in these particular words. Quote me a scholarly secondary source that plainly states the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 was incited by a demand for democracy—using the word 'democracy', or a direct synonym for it—or this conversation is over. Remsense聊 13:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The revolution lasted only for two days between march 15-and 16. It's keyfigures were extra parliamentary radical democrat intellectuals, led by poet Sándor Petőfi. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Democracy_and_Myth_in_Russia_and_Eastern/vCUHwCwLAr8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=pet%C5%91fi+%22for+democracy%22&pg=PA182&printsec=frontcover The Hungarian suffrage was much wider than the contemporary British.

The revolutionary crowd demanded democratic reforms: By democratic they meant a ministry responsible to the electorate, universal suffrage, equal treatment before the law, freedom of association and of expression , and taxation based upon the ability to pay https://www.google.com/books/edition/Harvard_Historical_Studies/bjM9AAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22S%C3%A1ndor+pet%C5%91fi%22+%22democratic%22&dq=%22S%C3%A1ndor+pet%C5%91fi%22+%22democratic%22&printsec=frontcover

I think it is clear. I can cite hundreds of such books.--Pharaph (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Genuinely, thank you. That is what we've been asking for, now we can compare the weight of sources on an equivalent basis. Remsense聊 15:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The reality is that there were two themes to the Revolution, as summarised in this source: The troubles in the Austrian Empire actually began in Hungary. On March 3 1848 Lajos Kossuth, a Magyar nationalist, attacked the Austrian domination of Hungary. His call was for Hungarian independence and a responsible ministry under the Habsburg crown[10]. As with the revolution in the German states it was a mix of nationalism and radical liberalism. DeCausa (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Hungarian independence from the despotic rule/aspirations of Habsburg dynasty. Hungary was not part of Austrian Empire, as I proved that above.

All contemporary liberals / democrats were also partially nationalist in the era. However Kossuth followed the enlightened Western type of liberal/civic nationalism, meanwhile Slavic groups with their imagined panslavist connationalist racial ideas represented the ethnic nationalism, based on racist world view.

About Panslavist and pangermanist beliefs , they built upon racism, and racial supremacy beliefs. Books about that:

https://books.google.com/books?id=gt26WR1zSxIC&pg=PT65&dq=Pan+Slavism+racism&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-seew9uKBAxWM0QIHHSc0CZUQ6AF6BAgHEAM#v=onepage&q=Pan%20Slavism%20racism&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=DpJlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA182&dq=Pan+Slavism+racism&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi-seew9uKBAxWM0QIHHSc0CZUQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=Pan%20Slavism%20racism&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=0gZj0L4ucocC&pg=RA14-PA1&dq=Pan+Slavism+racism&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDrZ-W-eKBAxWW0QIHHWDPAAY4ChDoAXoECAQQAw#v=onepage&q=Pan%20Slavism%20racism&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=lP8kKUKmOwAC&pg=PA187&dq=Pan+Slavism+racism&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDrZ-W-eKBAxWW0QIHHWDPAAY4ChDoAXoECAsQAw#v=onepage&q=Pan%20Slavism%20racism&f=false

Civic nationalism is frequently contrasted with ethnic nationalism. According to Donald Ipperciel, historically, civic nationalism was a determining factor in the development of modern constitutional and democratic forms of government, whereas ethnic nationalism has been more associated with authoritarian rule and even dictatorship. Ipperciel, Donald (2007). "Constitutional democracy and civic nationalism". Nations and Nationalism. 13 (3): 395–416. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8129.2007.00293.x.

The 20th century revival of civic nationalism had key role in the ideological war against the racist and nazi ideologies. Reference: Nancy Foner; Patric simon (2015). Fear, Anxiety, and National Identity Immigration and Belonging in North America and Western Europe. Russell Sage Foundation. p. 38. ISBN 9781610448536. --Pharaph (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2023

Third paragraph, lead section: “With the exception of the territory of Bosnian Condominium, Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary were separate sovereign countries in international law.” Should be: “With the exception of the territory of the Bosnian Condominium, the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary were separate sovereign countries in international law.” 2A00:23C6:95CE:B401:80C0:D1D5:C2F2:9EC7 (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Guild of CopyEditors

I took this article on for the GOCE backlog drive. I cut this down to the degree I could but, not being well-read on this subject, trimming is all I could accomplish. The child articles really need sourcing and development so this article can be a well-sourced summary. That's more than I can accomplish for GOCE. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

A simple way to show the flags of Austria-Hungary in the info box: a proposal

Hello, i've heard a lot about the discourse over the simple inclusion of flags for representing the nation, or rather, dual monarchy, or, something like what Great Britain is. The whole debacle about the civil ensign being used as the flag apparently goes back to before Wikipedia was established, when it was being shown as the official flag in some encyclopedias. I wanted to throw some ideas out for how to represent the flags of Austria-Hungary. 1. austrian flags on one side, coat of arms in the middle, hungarian flags on the other, bosnian flags on the bottom. This is fairly simple, on the left side of the CoA, you have Cisleithania's main flag, on the right, you have Transleithania's, and below, you have Bosnia's. 2. the main flag used (aka the cisleithanian flag), with the other flags in a section explaining the other countries. This is like how the UK wiki page does it. Personally, I would go with this one. The ensigns could also be explained in another section, and the provinces & flags of the 3 countries could be explained on another page.

So what do yall think of these ideas 2601:5C4:8100:1E70:7497:F73D:F9F9:8EBF (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is it important to do this when it bloats the infobox and Flags of Austria-Hungary is its own page? There's this impulse that information on sovereign states must prioritize flags the way we are familiar with—it is simply anachronistic, and indulging it is misleading. We don't need more elaborate ideas on how to present the flags because the flags were not that important to this particular polity. Remsense留 22:37, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

What do I think? I think this thread should be closed as soon as possible. The options you state were edit warred over many years which seriously destabilised this article. There are strong off- and on-wiki POVs at play. The current "no flags" compromise was adopted two years ago and since then peace has reigned. Opening up this issue again is not only pointless but highly disruptive. DeCausa (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

I wasnt even trying to start some argument, I was just suggesting a simple way to represent the flags of Austria Hungary, based off of how the flags of the UK are represented 2601:5C4:8100:1E70:4460:595B:A671:3942 (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)