Talk:Magyarization

Whole article

Unnecessary article

I don't think writing this article was of any use. Why are you going on about the so-called "magyarization". Obviously, in Hungary, people hardly can pronounce foreign place names, so in Hungary, you can't use foreign place names officially. But in private, everybody calls everything as they like, don't they?! So I think a name's origin is not a question, because nobody cares about that. I wouldn't want the French to call Paris Párizs officially because that's more convenient for me, would I? So in my opinion, do not care about "magyarized" or "non-magyarized" words, use any word you like! Vargamate (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is necessary .magyarisation happened and it`s well documented. even today in romania some hungarian parties are using the process of magyarisation on the romanian communities especially in parts of romania where hungarians are the majority denying people of other enticity their basic rights unless they accept to learn hungarian .another example is the so called "csangos" (religious catholic minority in eastern romania some of them speak hungarian and others are indoctrinated). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.52.225.123 (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is odd of speaking of "magyarisation" in Romania, and "Hungarians denying people of other ethnicity their basic rights". Such a statement ignores history, and in fact represent gross revisionism. Translyvania has always been populated by mostly Hungarians, especially before WWI. It has only become a part of Romania because of the Trianon Treaty. Much has been said about that treaty, it's worth doing some research on it instead of twisting the truth. What succeeded the annexation of Transylvania to Romania can best be labeled "romanisation" of Transylvanian cities and villages, many of which were outright bulldozed. Romanians were transplanted and moved into the region specifically to overwhelm the native Hungarian population. Sound familiar? Just for a second, consider what would happen if Alaska were all of a sudden ripped from the U.S. and annexed to Russia? Would one consider "americanisation" the inhabitants of Alaska attempting to continue speaking English and live like they had before? How would an American majority in Alaska even have the power to deny rights to anyone when they were under the authority of the Russian government? It simply doesn't make sense. "Magyarisation", as presented in this Wikipedia article, comes across as some strange, distorted smear campaign conducted against Hungarians for reasons that still elude me. And none of it is "well documented". Simply saying that it is doesn't make it so. On the contrary, there are more and more documents being uncovered that provide an insight into how and why the Trianon Treaty resulted in Central Europe being carved up the way it was, and what happened to the various regions inhabited by Hungarians that were annexed to various different countries as a result of the Treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.186.162 (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but your comment is atlest biased. " Translyvania has always been populated by mostly Hungarians, especially before WWI" - starting from this statement and so on. It is well-referenced that Romanians have always represented the majority in the region of Transylvania. If you want to contribute to the article please find some contrustive way to do so, not like this. And this article is certainly needed, since magyarisation had a big impact on many nations surrounding Hungary, not to mention that we have so many examples of this and it is well-documented as well. Greetings.Adrian (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong point of view in respect of ethnic policy

Nowadays criticism of societies of the past is sometimes based on the novel and modern philosophy. This article, and another opinions and historical point of views related to ethnic policy often do this kind of mistake. It's a bad approach, because they doesn't examine the phenomenon it the proper historical context. According to the Enlightenment, people should have to be politically equal. But this ideology formed in France with nationalism, avoiding the problem of living ethnics close together. Only in Central-European region the reformers had to face this problem. The nowadays ethnic policy was unknown in that days, and the first trials were in Hungary in 1949/1868: giving the same political rights to the citizens. "all citizens of Hungary form, politically, one nation, the indivisible unitary Hungarian nation (nemzet), of which every citizen of the country, whatever his personal nationality (nemzetiség), is a member equal in rights." I think it was a forward-looking policy, in spite of the fact that the gowernment ignored the nationalist ambitions of the ethnics. We can't blame them for the elementary practice of law, alike we don't blame people in the middle-age not using trains for transportation.Lynxof (talk) 23:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Petőfi-example

Taking Sándor Petőfi as an example of how Magyarization could turn an originally non-Hungarian person into a speaker of Hungarian national identity is totally fake: Hungarian replaced German (and previously Latin) as the official language of Hungary in 1844 - 21/20 years after the suspected "State-driven Magyarization" of the poet. Petőfi's choice was only a result of a mixed-language family where the son adopted the fathers language instead of the mother's (Slovakian). User:bmagyarkuti

I think if he thought that he was a Hungarian then we should respect it. I am also of tot ('slovak') origin but I think I'm Hungarian. Nobody forced me to feel like this and it was the same with Petofi. H-Vergilius 10:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

And by this, you are the perfect example of magyarization. Propaganda is also one way how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.98.213 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, because he says he voluntarily decided to consider himself a Hungarian, nobody forced him to. Squash Racket (talk) 11:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is what I say. Propaganda is not about violence, but about convincing people. Yet it is still magyarization.

Basically, magyar historians try to spread propaganda all the time, often ignoring historical facts. For example the myths, that Magyars are descendants of Avars, Huns or Sumers. Or tha myth, that Magyars were in Hungary since ancient times. Or the myths about the Stephen's crown. Great summarization of this is in the book of Benda K. and Fügedi E.: "This belief was establishing over centuries. Historians can do nothing but accept it: In this case, it is not important, whether the crown really belonged to Stephen I. Important is the absolute faith, that it belonged to him."147.175.98.213 (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the one doing propaganda here is you. There are many arguments about history written by Romanian or Slovakian historians being more myth than reality, too, but let's not go into this. As for Petőfi, his father being a Serb is a myth in the first place, as Petrovics István was Slovak. :See e.g. http://www.geographic.hu/index.php?act=napi&rov=6&id=5533. So both his father and mother were Slovak: all the family was of Slovakian origin. Moreover, there was no Magyarizing propaganda in the 1820s; before the Reform Era, this is just an era of utter German (and, because of the official language, Latin) domination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.221.172 (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think Petőfi isn't a good example for a central and intentional magyarisation. Hungaran Kingdom was gowerned (as the article says) from Vienna, so before the national revolution in 1848 the ethnic policy wasn't controlled by hungarian offices. Moreover the austrian kaiser's gowernment did germanisation in Hungary (and in other countries as well). They moved german settlers to Hungary. It was faworable them to decrease the hungarian national integrity.

So there is no sense suggesting Petőfi was a victim of magyarisation. His self-identification was autonomus.Lynxof (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Petőfi especially learnt for 2 years in a german secondary school, and wrote a patriotic poem in 1842 when the latin was the official language in the country. Csokyspite (talk) 06:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How the hell would Petőfi have been forced to change his name to Hungarian?! If he were such a great Serb, he wouldn't have considered writing '12 pont' or 'Nemzeti dal', let alone dying for Hungary.Adam vg (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Jews

If Jewish people claim to be Hungarian, they should be counted as Hungarians. Squash Racket 18:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 1910 census did not recorded nationality, but only language and religion, thus the Jews never said are they Jews or Hungarians by nationality. The fact is that Jews are much older people than Hungarians (they had their independent country 2000 years ago, in the time when Hungarians still lived as barbarians), thus claiming that Jews are not an ethnic group is clear example of anti-semitism. PANONIAN 09:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If the 1910 census did not record nationality, only Jews' language (Hungarian) and their religion (Jewish or Christian) why is that a proof of 'Magyarizing'? Why is it in the article? Can we remove it? And stop making personal attacks based on that 'information', OK? Squash Racket 05:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But that is very good proof of magyarization: the native language of the Jews was Hebrew and the basic fact that they did not spoke Hebrew but Hungarian in 1910 means that they were magyarized. PANONIAN 15:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Where in Europe did Jews speak Hebrew outside of the synagogue these times? Squash Racket 19:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I speak about times before "these times"... PANONIAN 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Currently the Jews in Hungary are not treated as national minority, and this is not antisemitism. I cite: "2005 októberében a Társaság a Magyarországi Zsidó Kisebbségért érvényes népi kezdeményezést nyújtott be az Országgyűléshez a zsidó nemzetiség elismerését kérve. 2006. július 3-ig azonban a szervezetnek nem sikerült összegyűjtenie az ehhez szükséges legalább ezer aláírást." (http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarorsz%C3%A1g_nemzetis%C3%A9gei) Translation: "In October 2005 the Association for the Hungarian Jew Minority passed in a civil initiative to the Hungarian Parliament in order to ask to recognize the Jews as national minority. Up to 3rd July, 2006. this organization wasn't able to collect at least 1000 signatures which is necessary for that." According to http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarorsz%C3%A1g#Etnikai_.C3.A9s_nyelvi_megoszl.C3.A1s, "a magyarországi zsidóság nagyobb része nem nemzetiségként határozza meg magát", meaning "the biggest part of the Jews in Hungary don't identify themselves as national minority". Fcsaba 11:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But this is exactly proof of their magyarization and it is also proof that Hungary did not changed much its policy towards national minorities since 1910 (Bunjevci are also not recognized as minority by Hungary no matter that they collected enough signatures). PANONIAN 15:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In 1910 Jews in Germany were Germans, Jews in Galicia were Poles it was not germanization or polishization just assimilation. May be it was sucsessful because in these places the jews were emancipated an there were no antisemitic laws against them. In 1880 60% of the Jews had Hungarian mother language so they weren't magyarized. (Until 1878 it wasn't compulsory to learn Hungarian language in Hungary)Csokyspite (talk) 06:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, you do not want to assume that the situation in 1910 and 2006 is the same, do you? I guess the fact that the Hungarian Jews were not able to collect 1,000 signatures for their petition in 2006 has something to do with the extermination of the 600,000 Jews in Hungary during WWII. Let us focus on what the article actually deal with (the pre-WWI period). Tankred 13:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Even Jewish people say about 400000 Hungarian Jews (History of the Jews in Hungary) were killed by the Germans during WWII. Jews and nationality have a unique connection in Hungary and the article does not reflect that. Read Neolog for example. Squash Racket 14:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Another proof of magyarization, I would say... PANONIAN 15:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I bet you would say that after reading those two articles, haha. Squash Racket 19:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I said that after reading your words: "Jews and nationality have a unique connection in Hungary" - I just wonder why... PANONIAN 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Weren't the adoption of other languages by the Jews a uniformal trend in Europe throughout the past centuries? I'm not expressing problems with this article (that is kind of eye-opening, since it expresses historical facts that are recognized by everyone, but Hungarians. we simply forgot these things), so I'm just curious, because I don't really know. I'm sure about the German trends, but not that of the French, Italians, etc. Hunmihaly 07:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, “the adoption of other languages by the Jews in other countries” are subject of other “ization” articles, not of this one. PANONIAN 21:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

132.77.4.129 (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Speaking as a Israeli Jew of Non-Hungarian origin (Father's mother from Transcarpatia, evryone else from Galicia or U.S): One thing that always struck me about Jews who immigrated from Modern Transylvania (that is western Rumania) is that they ALWAYS identified them as Hungarian rather than Rumanian. Jews who Immigrated from Slovakia ALWAYS identified themselves as Czechs or Czechoslovaks rather than Slovaks or Hungarians. Likewise, Jews immigrating from Central Asia or the Caucaus always identified themselves as "Russian"- even if they were Bukharan (Jews who lived in Central Asia since 600 C.E rather than immigrants who came during Russian/Soviet period).

I think this has absolutely nothing to do with "National identification", Magyarization or Russification. Jews simply preferred to identify with the portion of the population which was more "advanced" and cultual- regardless of the political conditions at the time. Thus, Jews living in Transylvania continued to Identify themselves as "hungarians" during 70 years of Rumanian rule because Rumania and the Rumanian population were poorer and less educated than the Hungarians. Jews living in Slovakia/Czechoslovakia quickly switched to being Czechs because the Czechs were better educated and richer than either the Hungarians or the Slovaks.132.77.4.129 (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that Hungarian Jews cannot be Hungarians strikes me as antisemetic. Seamusalba (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I totally agree: of course, they can be Hungarians. I think that the problem of some of the commenters is that the 1910 census did not register nationality, only "native language". However, in my opinion there is a pretty good correlation between the two. So, I think that most Jews who had Hungarian as mother tongue were Hungarians (e.g., they felt themselves Hungarian). Thus, it is not a big issue if we simply identify Hungarians with those who spoke Hungarian as mother tongue. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Place names

After the Treaty of Trianon hundreds of Hungarian placenames were changed to Slovakian, Romanian etc. You're talking about 'Magyarization'? Maybe a bit misleading?

I do not see connection between two issues. PANONIAN 09:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. ('Pannonia' (mostly Western Hungary in Roman times) is written with two N letters). Squash Racket 05:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then tell me what that connection is. Regarding Pannonia, it also included much of former Yugoslavia and more important: it was inhabited by Indo-European (not Finno-Ugric) peoples. Regarding two "n" letters, you are right of course, but I did not know that in the time when I registered my nickname. PANONIAN 15:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you (the first poster) are referring to what we in Hungary call an aspect of "reslovakization" in the post 1920 years, and I think they refer to it in the neighbouring countries as well. Magyarization is attributed mainly to the Dual Monarchy era. But there was a good reason behind the "re-" prefix after WW1, even if - in my opinion - other aspects of the "re-zation" against Hungarians and Germans in the Basin were mainly driven vengeance (apart from practical reasons and need to create homogenic populations), not democratization and in a way it made Hungary's neighbours as opressing as we were before 1918. But of course, that's the past, it's been 50 years and EU's 'border-policy' will probably help solving the remaining disputes. Hunmihaly 08:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention, that most of the names were changed back to Slovak and Romanian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.98.213 (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to mention that that is obviously not true, a lot of new names were invented in that period. Squash Racket (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

In what period? In the period 1848-1918? Or before? Give me a few examples in Slovakia please.147.175.98.213 (talk) 12:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Btw. if you answer something, indent your comment.

"Examples of places where original non-Hungarian names were replaced with newly invented Hungarian names: Szvidnik - Felsővízköz (in Slovak Svidník, now Slovakia), Najdás - Néranádas (in Romanian Naidǎş, now Romania), Sztarcsova - Tárcsó (in Serbian Starčevo, now Serbia), Lyutta - Havasköz (in Ruthenian Lyuta, now Ukraine), Bruck - Királyhida (now Bruck an der Leitha, Austria)[citation needed]."

I think this is completely misleading and should be removed as most settlements in the course of history had/obtained Hungarian names in the historical Hungary. Most of the magyarization examples are translations. I would consider Magyarization if a town would gain a new official name, name of a Hungarian national hero(one that was even hostile with the people living there). There are good examples of national"izations" in settlement names: The village with the name "Zoltán" (a first name), or "Szentmihály" (Saint Michael) was translated as Mihai Viteazu (Mihai the heroic), or the town "Párkány"(the name has turkish origin, 68.7% of the inhabitants being ethnic Hungarian) is named after the 19th century Slovak national leader, Ľudovít Štúr.. I believe the Serb, Slovac and Romanian nationalist interest would regret to dispute the origin of settlement names and fooling around with who was where first.

I just looked up a single village "Tárcsó" and found a site telling that:

"Az 1717. évi összeírás szerint 50 házból állt. 1764-ben határőrvidéki szerbeket és németeket telepítettek. A horvátok telepítése 1773-1774-ben kezdődhetett. A II. világháború után a németek helyére 160 szerb családot telepítettek, de azok több mint harmada visszatért szülőhelyére. A betelepülés a következő években is folytatódott, mára szinte csak szerbek lakják." http://vajdasag.netoktato.hu/T%C3%A1rcs%C3%B3 (site about the settelments of Vojvodina in hungarian language)

Which means that: In the census of 1717 the village had 50 houses. Beginning with 1764 Serb and German military frontiers were established. After WII in the place of Germans 160 Serb family was settled, though most of these families returned to their native place the settlement of Serbs continued and today is a village with an almost completely Serb population."

For those with too strong national feelings: make justice and judge first your own nation, and when you say everything is fine there then you are probably not telling the truth.81.181.70.7 (talk) 10:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)surfer

Literature

Please refrain from removing references to the academic literature from this article. And please do not delete the paragraphs you do not like without proposing such a big change on this talk page. Tankred 18:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there English version of your 'academic literature' or will we all learn Slovakian? If that is so, Hungarian sources are accepted too, right?

I also found a lie about Petőfi having Serb ancestors. The article needs serious amount of rewriting, the changes I made are only the most necessary. Squash Racket 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not lie, his father was Serb, which can be easily proved by sources. PANONIAN 09:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Petőfi's father CLAIMED to be Hungarian which can be easily proved by sources. Squash Racket 05:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

His father was magyarized Serb, but even magyarized Serbs are Serbs. See: http://www.rtv.co.yu/sr/vesti/vremeplov/2007_07_31/vest_26526.jsp Quote: "U bici kod Šegešvara poginuo je mađarski pisac i revolucionar srpskog porekla, major mađarske revolucionarne vojske Šandor Petefi. Rođen je 1823. kao Aleksandar Petrović, od oca Srbina i majke Slovakinje." (English translation: "In the battle near Šegešvar, Šandor Petefi, Hungarian writer and revolutionary of Serb origin, major of Hungarian revolutionary army, has died. He was born in 1823 as Aleksandar Petrović, from Serb father and Slovak mother") - so much about sources. PANONIAN 15:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see that you actually like this kind of discussion. What you want to hear is this: you can make changes to articles as long as they are referenced. If there are conflicting references to academic sources you should deal until concensus is reached, OK? That is the bottomline, right? Squash Racket 19:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Please forgive me that I don't wanna end up like that USER, OK? Squash Racket 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What is problem with reference that I presented? PANONIAN 18:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

1820 Census data

First of all, I've never heard of the term 'Magyarization' before, but I am aware that the Austro-Hungarian empire did have a lot of influence over many countries in terms of culture, particularly the Slavs of the Balkans. Second, there is an image located here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Redmap.jpg . The description under the image on the article page says that Croats aren't included. I would like to correct this, as the name being used by the Magyars to describe the Croatians is "Horvats". Horvat is the most common Surname in Croatia and the name Croats use to identify themselves is Hrvat or Hrvati. A translation of the word can be provided at this location: http://translate.google.com/#hu%7Cen%7Chorvat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.13.128.102 (talk) 08:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian bi-lingual banknote

Could someone upload and add the Austro-Hungarian banknote from this link? [1] I am not registered and am not going to register just because of this... There is a multi-lingual banknote image in this article, so there also should be a bi-lingual banknote. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.98.213 (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Great image, but what are permissions for the use of this image? It could be a nice addition to the article. Adrian (talk) 07:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Magyarization only began in the 1800s.

How is that a basis for claiming 95% of modern day Hungarians have no genetic relation to the original Hungarians 1000 years ago? 184.96.242.187 (talk) 19:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

When the Hungarians first arrived in the Carpathian Basin they undoubtedly intermarried with the native mixture of Slavs, Thracians/Proto Romanians, Germans, Avars and Bulgarians, not to mention any Slavic or proto Romanian women they took as Slaves when living in modern Ukraine and Moldavia in the previous centuries which would have diluted their DNA.

Then you had the major wars--the first being the Mongol invasion of Hungary in 1241. As the Mongols were nomadic horsemen, as the Hungarians were before they had their raids beaten back at Riade and Lechfeld and subsequently settled down--it is of no surprise that the Hungarian population was mainly concentrated on the lowland plains. If this map represents the basic ethnic area of the Hungarians prior to the Mongol attack, it explains why the Hungarians were so devastated--they occupied all of the same lowland plains that the Mongols desired for their cavalry, and furthermore it was virtually impossible to defend such a nearly steppe landscape without massive castles, while mountainous and forested areas, such as modern Slovakia, Transylvania proper (Crisana being a plain-land) and Maramures, were relatively safe from cavalry attacks. Thus the Slovaks and Romanians escaped the devastation of the Mongol attack and occupation far more than the Hungarians. Following the attack, Germans were increasingly invited into Hungary, which with the Romanian and Slovak minorities, and even Croats, undoubtedly led to mixed marriages and a general loss of DNA potency. At the same time, the Szekley were settled in the previously mainly Romanian Transylvania to form a border guard--allowing more opportunity for mixed marriages, not only with the Romanians but with the newly arrived Saxons.

One then has the Turkish War period of 1526-1718 (extending to 1718 to count the liberation of Banat and the Rákóczi was defeated in 1711). Hungary, minus Croatia, went from a nation of 4,000,000 with 3,200,000 Hungarian inhabitants to a nation of 3,200,000 with 1,600,000 Hungarian inhabitants. If the population of Portugal increasing from 1,100,000 in 1527 to 2,140,000 in 1732 are is an accurate picture of how Hungary's population would have behaved had there been no major war, one would have expected Hungary to have a population of around 7,750,000 in 1718 with around 6,200,000 Hungarians, however the reality is only 41.29% and 25.81% respectively. Again the lowland plains suffered most--with the notable exception of those along the upper Danube in modern Slovakia and those in the modern Hungarian counties of Gyor-Moson-Sopron, Vas, Veszprem and Zala. The Hungarian population of the plains of southern Baryana, Backa and the western 3/5 of Banat was annihilated during the conflict, while further up the Danube, and into Transylvania minus the Szekley area, it remained, although dispersed. As a result, Croats, Germans, Romanians and Serbs were imported, while Slovaks and Ukrainians were settled south of the language line, one of the few that remained well defined. (From 1700-1880, (before moving north due to Magyarization from 1880-1918, then south due to deportation and colonization from 1944-1989), that 'line' started south of Bratislava, moving east while passing just north of Senec, Galanta, Sala, Tvrdosovce, and Nove Zamky, before turning to Besenov, Mana, just around Nitra, passing north of Vrable and Levice, just south of Velky Krtis, turning north and passing just north of Lucenec, Rimavska Sobota and Roznava before turning east, passing just north of Moldava nad Bodvou to Luhyna, passing just south of Hran, north to Pavlovce nad Uhom before continuing east south of Uzhhorod, Mukachevo and Vynohradiv.)

This resettlement of Hungary caused for a lot of mixed marriages and people of partial or even non-Hungarian origin claiming to be Hungarian, all while further diluting the Hungarian DNA, so I see no reason for genetic confusion. Prussia1231 (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Cute anti-Hungarian original research. So why exactly did all of these different groups acquire the Hungarian language? What benefit would it serve them? The current genetic composition of Hungary is perfectly compatible with national tradition. 71.212.253.68 (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Significant viewpoints

Please add here for the sake of clarity what viewpoints are there and what viewpoints are missing. Regards,Octavian8 (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I will remove the tag in one week if no justifications appear here. Octavian8 (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing significant viewpoints

Nothing? Octavian8 (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Present significant viewpoints

Nothing? Octavian8 (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Worldwide view

Please describe here what would be a worldwide view of this topic. Regards, Octavian8 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I will remove the tag in one week if no justifications appear here. Octavian8 (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Comparation with assimilation processes from other countries

The phrase "On the other hand, this kind of approach to minority languages and culture was fully in line with the trends of the time. From the onset of Enlightenment Era, the same or even more severe forced assimilation techniques were used with success by significant Western European countries, such as Spain[5], France[6] or Britain[7]." is a funny attempt of some editors to find mitigating circumstances for Magyarization.

I understand that you try to seek excuses, but there is no need for this. There is already a template called "Cultural assimilation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cultural_assimilation on the bottom of the page, so drop it.

Besides, that phrase is an insolent manipulation of sources. There is no comparative analysis, there is not specified anywhere that assimilation was less severe than in Spain, France or Britain.

Don't just bring some sources hoping that we don't read them. Source 5 was about Fascist Spain and source 7 was about Amerindians (check the map, Britain is in Europe) ArpyArpy (talk) 07:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You should always assume that nobody is here to hurt the article, we just want to improve it - WP:AGF. Ok, I understand, but what about source 6? About France? Making this kind of analysis could be considered WP:OR - original research, but let`s analyze it.Adrian (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why would include it. How is Francization relevant here, that we have to mention it in the lead section? There is already a link to Francization article in the "Cultural Assimilation" template, it is enough. Does the article Germanization mention Francization? Or does the article Russification mention Germanization? ArpyArpy (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

According to other examples indeed this is not somewhat a normal info to include into an article like this. I guess this info should be removed then. Adrian (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear Iaaasi (alias ArpyArpy), it is not about finding mitigating circumstances for Magyarization, which was a shame by the way, but about putting the phenomena in a context. Unfortunately, enforced cultural assimilation was a common practice in that time (it still is in some countries), and providing a sentence about other examples does not exempt those Hungarian governments which were involved. On the other hand, why should we hide such an information? I agree that we should not overemphasize it, but mentioning this just makes the reader more informed about the issue. It does not count whether currently this or that article mentions such analogs, they are not etalons, why should we blindly follow them? Regarding the British Empire: just because it did something in its colonies, it was still the British Empire that committed such things (and it was not only in their colonies). The forced assimilation of Basques during the dictatorship of Franco is a classical example, that's why I have chosen that, but there are other Spanish examples, as well. Having the template of Cultural assimilation is not the same as having a sentence about analogue policies of other countries. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who this Iaaasi is. It would be polite from your part not to utter such unfounded accusations that I would be behind that nickname too. Your link was to Welsh Not while the source was about America, I recommend you to be more correct next time. I also read Adrian's article WP:OR and it perfectly describes what you're doing. ArpyArpy (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I take your point and not put it back until a better reference is found. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Austrian and Hungarian Minority rights were unique in pre WW1 Europe

The article did not mention that minority rights and laws were existed only in Austria and Hungary in pre-WW1 Europe! The first minority rights were invented firstly in Hungary in Europe!

The situation of minorities in Hungary were much more better than in contemporary Western Europe. Other highly multinational countries were: France Russia and UK.

See the multi-national UK:

The situation of Scottish Irish Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language, only english language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England.

See the multiethnic France:

In 1870, France was a similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. (many minority languages were closer to spanish or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools , minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public adimistration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period!!!

What about Russia?

Russian Empire was a similar multiethnic state as Hungary, without the existence of minority rights. The forced russification is also well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.6.147.1 (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)