Talk:Magyarization

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)

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)

The existence of ethnic/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 in July 1849! But these were overturned after the Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution. When Hungary made a compromise with the dynasty in 1867 one of the first acts of the restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868).

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)

If you have some *reliable* and *verifiable* sources which compare the situation of minorities in the Kingdom of Hungary with the other countries you have mentioned, then please put them forward. Without sources it should be considered as original research. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

IP editor

Please accept real history and the historic facts ! It was official document !!! --BogatRadvan (talk) 14:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, BogatRadvan, for your comment. I couldn't find your claim in the sources which were provided. Could you, please, quote the paragraph(s) that support the statement here (with English translations, if they are not in English), so we can verify that the claim is adequately supported by reliable sources? Thank you for your cooperation, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reply, are you the IP editor? What you can´t find when this law is on 92.side the "UNGARN JAHRBUCH" László Révész, Bern "Nationalitätenfrage und Wahlrecht in Ungarn 1848—1918" "-das Gesetz über die Gemeinde- und Ortsnamen (Ga. 4/1898)" adress http://epa.oszk.hu/01500/01536/00003/pdf/00003.pdf --BogatRadvan (talk) 13:31, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I am not the IP editor, I am Koertefa. :) I have checked page 92 of the source above, and found the following text: "das Gesetz über die Gemeinde- und Ortsnamen (Ga. 4/1898) erlaubte nur einen einzigen Namen für jede Ortschaft und ermächtigte den Innenminister, diesen selber zu bestimmen, falls eine Ortschaft mehrere Bezeichnungen hatte.". I think that this is the sentence you were referring to. My German is not perfect, but this quotation means something like: the law of 4/1898 allowed only one official name for each place (town, village, etc.) and authorized the Minister of the Interior to determine this name in case a place had several names. I am not an expert of this law, but that quote does not state that these official names could only be the Hungarian ones. Also, this sentence does not state that the place names had to be Magyarized (on the contrary, it states that the Minister of Interior could only chose from the existing names). Apologies, if it was not the part which you were referring to. In this case, could you please quote the sentence(s)? Thanks and sorry for being scrupulous, it is a quite sensitive topic and hence it is especially important to have very precise statements in the article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Iam realy thought that you are the IP editor :-) I can write next laws support the Magyarisation,from work the hungarian author László Révész : — das Kindergartengesetz (Ga. 15/1891) verlangte eine solche Beschäftigung mit den Kindern, welche eine Einführung in die magyarische Sprache ermöglicht.

-das Volksschulgesetz (Ga. 18/1879)verlangte den forcierten Unterricht der magyarischen Sprache -das Mitttelschulgesetz (Ga. 30/1883)... also the Apponyi law (Ga. 27/1907)... show the real state program for magyarisation = creation new magyar nation. Good is also work of the Gusztáv Beksics on 50th jubilee of magyarisation "Magyarosodás és Magyarositás" year 1883 , where is write word by word ,number by number about regions and towns "which can take from slovaks". Ofc I "only for you" here write the Hungarian sources, because I know that many magyars dont accept other sources even from slovak Universty studium texts :-) My friend , you must believe that under weight this proofs nobody can doubt or delete the history. I wish you nice day :-) --BogatRadvan (talk) 12:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think these official laws and documents will be good in the article.--Omen1229 (talk) 13:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear BogatRadvan, I am happy that we are going in the right direction. I do not know the authors you have mentioned, but if they are modern scholars (e.g., historians) and their works were published by reliable/academic publishers (e.g., not self-published documents), then they should be fine. I just want to ask you to read WP:SOURCE, and if the works are not accessible online, please, provide quotes (preferably paragraphs) that *directly* support the statements you would like to be included in the article, in order to ensure *verifyability*. Thanks and cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: About using a particular law as a source: you should be careful with *primary* sources, because it is easy to misuse them (e.g., if you draw a conclusion from them, then it is original research). You should use secondary or tertiary sources instead. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The nature of Magyarization

It can be a forced process or a voluntary process 82.79.215.221 (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Magyarization of Szekelys

The term Magyarization describes a process by which non-Hungarian nationals came to adopt the Hungarian culture and language, voluntarily or forcibly, regardless of era. The source clearly states that according to a theory the Szekelys are Magyarized Avars/Bulgars (it is proposed a Magyarization of Avars/Bulgars) 79.117.177.166 (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a minority ("fringe") theory. Székely is a Hungarian sub-group, according to the academic position. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not a fringe theory. Check History_of_the_Székely_people#Origins: "a number of historians, including György Györffy and Gyula Kristó, argues that the Székely descended from a Turkic population who joined the Hungarians before their conquest of the Carpathian Basin.". György Györffy was a Hungarian historian, and member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Gyula Kristó was a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences too. 86.126.34.135 (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The Hungarian tribal alliance was quite diverse it consisted of tribes of different ethnic backgrounds. Origin of Szekelys is obscure and still debated. However the whole process of "early Magyarization" (e.g. Kabars, Cumans, Jassic people, Patzinaks etc...) has nothing to do with this article. This page deals only with the period between circa 1800 and circa 1920. Moreover the statement about origin of Szekelys is also a POV issue because as it was mentioned above there are other theories in connection with their origin.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why the (presumed) fact should be ignored just because it happenned before 1820. The article is called Magyarization, not Magyarization (1820-1920), and should present all the Magyarization processes, regardless of era. And why is it a POV statement? It is explicitly written that it is one of the theories. If you want, we can include a link to History_of_the_Székely_people#Origins for the readers who want to see the full picture 86.127.22.152 (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)