Talk:Magyarization

Whole article

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)

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)

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)

Definition

The article uses at least three definitions of Magyarisation, let's decide which one is correct, which one is not.

• policies applied
• referring to geographical and personal names: renaming
• "in broader sense": ethnic discrimination
• "identity shift, which would compel someone to identify with the Hungarian ethnicity, while having no Hungarian ancestors".

We need a clear definition in the lead, otherwise it's POV. Squash Racket 17:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The term Magyarization is also sometimes used to refer to broader ethnic discrimination, which was used as a rationale for Magyarization.

Sentence of the year, dudes. Squash Racket 17:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question - How can it be understood in an NPOV sense as anything but a series of policies? Other issues such as discrimination or renaming may or may not be "causes" or "results" of Magyarization; but the subject of the article is firstly "Magyarization". KoH between 1867 and 1918 was politically very unique, by both modern and historical standards, and forcing POV via narrow modern context is misleading to most (esp. native) English-speaking people. This article must take a more objective look at the exact laws within the scope of "Magyarization" and abide less spleen-venting POV. István 20:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The term "Magyarization" includes all these things. Magyarization is the process of changing non-magyar things to magyar. There are many things how to do it, including those you mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.98.213 (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your NPOV comment, but the different definitions contradict each other in the article. Squash Racket (talk) 11:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, that the definition at the beginning of the article is OK. Except the dates, which should be removed or marked with something like "especially in the 19th ..."

The other "definitions" in this article are not definitions, but merely the tools used for magyarization.147.175.98.213 (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Election system

I have some difficulty in understanding the part on the election system, where it says "Transylvania had an even worse representation, the more Romanian a county was, the fewer voters did it possess. Out of the Transylvanian deputies sent to Budapest, 35 represented the 4 mostly Hungarian counties and the chief towns (together forming 20% of the population), whereas only 30 deputies represented another 72% of the population, which was predominantly Romanian. In other words, among Romanians there was an average of one deputy to every 60,000 inhabitants, while among the Hungarians one deputy to 4-5,000.[21][22]" I can't check the references, but 4,000 Hungarian inhabitants per deputy would make 140,000 Hungarians in Transylvania and (considering it refers to the whole of Parliament, with 413 deputies total) 1,652,000 in all KoH. This fails to work any way, either if we talk about Hungarians only or the whole population. Even if we suppose that all deputies of the Parliament were Hungarians (what obviously isn't true), this would set the number of all Hungarians in KoH only to 1,652,000, and this figure gets even more unrealistic with every minority deputy that you subtract from the total 413 deputies. Zigomer trubahin (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how many deputies there were in the whole Parliament, but if you say that there were 413 in total, then you are right, those proportions cannot really work. And from the text, it's not clear what is the regional scale they were applied to. It would certainly help if we could get the actual list with the deputies. This would clarify everything. But at least for me, that's impossible. However, for a History enthusiast in Budapest who can access the Archives, this might be an interesting task. But until we get some more information on the issue, I agree with you that the proportions should be eliminated from the article, as they seem wrong. Alexrap (talk) 12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You can find the number of deputies in the KoH parliament in a number of sources, e.g. on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orsz%C3%A1ggy%C5%B1l%C3%A9s (453 total, of which 43 were delegates from Croatia, 413 from Hungary proper). I don't have much time these days to clarify what the real proportions could have been, but I'll have a look at the issue when I get to a library. At least, I put the task on my agenda... Zigomer trubahin (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

putting it all in context

At some point I'd like to see a bit more explanation of the historical events and political conditions that led to the Magyarization policies. I've always seen it as an unfortunate but perhaps inevitable backlash against several centuries of primarily Austro-German cultural dominance, the flames of which were obviously fanned by the ethnic fighting in 1848-49. From what I can tell there was a real sense of fear in those days that the Magyar people and Magyar culture were in danger of essentially vanishing, being swallowed up by a Germanic monolith to the west and a Slavic one to the east. And before you all jump on me, no, I'm not defending or trying to "excuse" the regrettable era of cultural chauvinism that ensued, but I think it deserves to be put in its proper historical context. K. Lásztocska 20:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That was probably this way, but could you get some sources for your theory? Until that it would be hard to change the article. Squash Racket 04:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there were some statements to this effect in The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat by Paul Lendvai (Princeton 2003, I believe) but I don't have the book with me anymore so I can't look for the exact statements and proper citations right now--sorry! Just wanted to put in my two cents and get the ball rolling. K. Lásztocska 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What you mention is the "attack is the best defense" or "preventive strike" system. This never led to good results, like it didn't give good results in the case of Magyarization (just my opinion, feel free to comment). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.98.213 (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Emigration Figures

Before implying that Magyarization was responsible for the disproportionately higher percentage of non-Hungarian emigrants from the KoH one must also 1. consider Geography, and 2. keep an explicit distinction between the meanings of "emigrant" and "refugee". The article states (without reference) that the major sources of emigration were in the north of Slovakia and the southern Vojvodina provinces, both on the borders of Hungary, and both heavily populated by minorities. If true, this would skew figures, as sometimes people move home only a few km, even if only to the next town, and if the next town happens to be across the border then those people are technically emigrants (but not necessarily refugees). In the KoH, the border was only in one sense "national" (hence the KoH's unique political status) yet mostly still within the empire, and likely ethnically similar on one side as the other and thus not much disincentive to cross. Such a move is technically "emigration". Hungarians in the center would have to move home a much greater distance to cross a border. The article disingenuously uses "emigration" figures to imply that "Magyarization" generated "refugees". Whether this is true or not remains to be proven, only after one also addresses economic trends of the time, and the question of Geography. István 21:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the primary motivation must have been overwhelmingly economic. As to cross-border migration, it did not apply to the Kingdom's northern counties. The adjacent areas in Galicia had been poorer than the northern counties of the Kingdom of Hungary for centuries. Any traceable historical migration in the area took place from Galicia/Podhale to the Kingdom's more prosperous "Upland," not the other way round. Any such migration had become insignificant by the period under discussion. Carca220nne (talk) 09:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is written from the slav point of view

This page is written from the slav point of view. Magyarization was not violent. Those executions in 1848 were in the middle of a revolution where the slavs allied the oppressive Habsburg empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.78.250 (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Černová massacre happened in 1907 - long time after the revolution. And it was not the only case. Saying that Magyarization was not violent is like saying, that shooting and imprisoning people is a peaceful conflict solution.

Andrej Hlinka has been a controversial figure even among Slovak people, so the Cernova event alone is not a really good proof of the violent side of Magyarization. Squash Racket (talk) 11:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Magyarization in polish

I thought that Polish would have been one of the languages effected by Magyarization, Many of the accents and symbols are the same, E.g - Sz. Polish and Hungarian look closely related, which is un-usual because Polish is a Slavic based language and Hungarian is an Uralic language. user: Falcon-eagle2007, 7:53 GMT

Basically, this is not unusual if you realise, that the magyar language took many things from slavic languages. According to some sources, more than 10% of magyar word roots have slavic origin.147.175.98.213 (talk) 23:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically, it is more than 20%91.127.191.74 (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Hungarian diacritical marks mostly derive from the Hussite alphabet. I don't think any "Magyarization" of Polish could have occurred during history - when and how could it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.221.172 (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Černová event as a proof of the 'violent' Magyarization

If we include the sentence about "the European public being shocked", we will also have some info on the background of the event. As a proof of the violence of Magyarization as presented now, it is POV, misleading and unencyclopedic. Either we change the wording in a NPOV way or we have to really describe what happened there and why. Squash Racket (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

So tell us your POV, what happened there and why?147.175.98.213 (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2007 (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)

The commander of the hungarian gendarmarie troop shooting in Cernova was not Slovak

The commander of the hungarian gendarmarie troop in Cernova was underofficer Pereszlényi, an ethnic Hungarian. This information is verified, among others, by an eye-witness, mister Cernovski from Cernova.[2]

Therefore, the revert [3] was not justified. For the same reason, the edit comment in the edit summary [4] is misleading.147.175.98.213 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The shoot command was given by Ján Ladiczky after Pereszlényi repeatedly ordered the coach to advance through a mass of people. He and other members of the troop are said to be ethnic Slovaks (i.e. people identifying them with Slovakia), but this information is verified by a newspaper from 2008 only, so a more relevant source should be found, preferably a record from the state registry archive. The name "Ladiczky" looks like a magyarized version of the name "Ladický", so I have my doubts.147.175.98.213 (talk) 13:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted text

Hobartimus, could you please explain why are you insisting in deleting/modifying the following things:

• you seem not to like the fact that Romanians were a majority in Transylvania. For some strange reason you are saying that Romanians were a majority in Southern Transylvania only. And you also put a 'citation needed' tag in there, too. Well, there is no need for any citation in there, just have a look on the official Hungarian censuses, that you can check for example in the History of Transylvania article. And stop implying that the Romanian majority was a characteristic of the Southern Transylvania only. It was for all of it.
• the fact that John Hunyadi's father was Vlach is included even in the article about John Hunyadi. Why would you delete that from here?
• you also delete the text discussing the change in the ethnic composition between 1869 and 1910. That text uses information recorded by Hungarian censuses. What do you have against it?
• why do we need the 'citation needed' tag for the phrase: Romanian name "Ion Negru" would become "János Fekete", or the Slavic name "Novo Selo" would become "Újfalu"? These are just translations. Shall we cite a dictionary in there?
• you also deleted the text talking about the Greek-catholic people in Hungary. Again, why?

The only reason you gave so far was that Olahus inserted that text in the first place. So what? Is he not allowed to contribute? Alexrap (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alex I don't know if you have trouble understanding but I actually did not write any of this stuff that you accuse me of. If you read the edit summary it will be clear that it's only a revert (return to a previous version) of undiscussed changes. Also János Hunyadi's ancestry has nothing to do with this article which deals with mainly 19th century topic. You might address your questions to ppl who actually wrote the previous version. Hobartimus (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. I wasn't saying that you wrote that text in the first place. I was only against some modifications you made to it. Alexrap (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some serious problems with this text:

• the simply horrible English
• the first reference doesn't prove what the text claims to prove (I don't understand the second, Romanian one)
• the diocesan homepage history section claims that the Greek rite was continous among some Hungarian groups from the early Middle Ages and other Rusyn and Romanian groups who moved to the Alföld assimilated into Magyars during the 13-18th centuries.[5]

This story about the origin of Greek-Catholic Magyars is totally different from what Olahus presented here, ie. they were created by forceful Magyarization in the 19th century. Zello (talk) 23:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know much about this issue, but, from what I can see, the first reference explicitly says that the eparchy was seen (even by its founders) as an instrument of Magyarizing Greek Catholics. The second reference says the same thing (on page 18). Unfortunately I cannot read the diocesan homepage that you make reference to, but I take your word for it. Anyway, these 3 references don't necessarily contradict each other. In 1912 when the eparchy was founded, there could well have been Greek rite Magyars (some originally Magyars and others Rusyns Magyarized before 1912) and Greek rite non-Magyars (Romanians and Rusyns). The point was to get all these under the same roof and to promote Hungarian in the liturgy. Which is why the subject is relevant to this article. And I guess the "horrible English" can always be improved. Alexrap (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The first reference claims to prove that Greek Catholic Hungarians had mostly Rusyn "descendants" (obviously ancestors). I don't see this statement in the referenced text. I think you are absolutely right that in 1912 Greek Catholics were a diverse group with different ethnic background. But Olahus claimed that every living Greek Catolic Hungarian is a product of modern Magyarization policy. The two statements are contradictory. In my point of view the Hajdúdorog movement was not a tool of Magyarization but an expression of the natural wishes of people to hear the sermons on their mother language instead of Greek. Hungarian was certainly the mother language of the majority of this community in 1912 although some subgroups adopted it only in the 19th century while others centuries before. Zello (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The sins of the J...Magyars

This article is like a "list of the Sins of the Magyars" to me, and not the description of Magyarization. The artile could be simply renamed to "The Protocols of the Elders of Pannonia" in this form, since it has long long conspiracy theories mixed with reality and popular beliefs to prove, that Magyars conspired to raid and destroy her ethnicities. This is an anti-magyar essay (just see language, for example: "We have to poin it out" - Who are those "we"?) And so on.

This is so huge and massive, that I hardly believe it would be possible to clean it up, since deleting and rewrinting would be a lot easier. --Rembaoud (talk) 22:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced numbers

User:Csokyspite added a lot of unsourced numbers to the article. Regarding the 1910 census data all the numbers were changed citing a false reference which only gives numbers about the counties but not the whole country. This reference fails to prove the new numbers but gives the false impression the reader that the numbers are sourced. I don't know whether the numbers are correct or not but this behaviour seriously undermines the credibility of wikipedia, even more than the previous, unsourced version. The other numbers about the Jews are totally unreferenced. Although I think the edits of Csokyspite constitute vandalism I wouldn't like to break the three revert rule. User:Csokyspite should give us his credible, scientific source for the new numbers or the edits should be undone by other users. Zello (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Do not abort the official census results of 1910. Total population was 20.8 million (Including Croatia) 2.9 million Romanians-14.1% 2 million Germans-9.7% 1.96 mill. Slovak-9.4%. Only 80% of the Jews were Hungarian in 1910.Csokyspite (talk) 06:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

How many times should I type the correct figueres???

without Croatia: Hun 54.5% Rom 16.1%

with Croatia Hun 48.2% Rom 14.1%

Is it really so difficult to understand??Csokyspite (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many times you type them without giving a source for them. The source you given doesn't prove anything, it is misleading. There is still no source for the Jews that you also changed. Zello (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ip, Treznea

I see mention of these two events (1940) has been removed. I don't know if that's correct, so let's discuss it and see what we conclude. My position: of course the phenomenon mainly covers 1848/67-1918, but the Hungarian administration in N. Transylvania (1940-44) actively tried to re-Magyarize. On the other hand, that mainly took the form of driving out the Romanians (and, in a few instances, killing them), quite unlike the earlier phase. So I think probably the article should stop at 1918, unless we can find reliable sources labelling 1940-44 as a sort of "second wave" of Magyarization. Thoughts? Biruitorul ^Talk 04:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The definition in the lead says "until the beginning of the 20th century". Do you have (possibly English language) reliable sources describing World War II events as Magyarization? Squash Racket (talk) 04:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No - as I said, "the article should stop at 1918". Should sources turn up, however, we should reconsider that. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "setonwatson1911" :
  • R.W. Seton-Watson, ''Corruption and reform in Hungary'', London, 1911
  • R.W. Seton-Watson, ''Corruption and reform in Hungary'', London, 1911, pp.403

DumZiBoT (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

New image

Can you somebody fix this image on page (mi english is not very got for description it :) ) thx This tablet is on building: International house of art for children in Bratislava(Slovakia)

Potocny

I added that picture to the article. --Wizzard (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

A memorial is not a reference. Please provide a reliable source for what the text says. Especially the part about "tens of thousands of Slovak children deported" is hard to believe, a reliable reference is needed. Squash Racket (talk) 07:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

From the official Slovak point of view there were deported tens of thousands of Slovak children. So, I don't see where the problem is. We can mention in the description of the picture that this is the Slovak point of view. We can also mention something about the official Hungarian point of view (if there is something to say). --Olahus (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If the official Slovak POV states that "tens of thousands of Slovak children were deported", then I don't think it will be difficult to find a reliable reference for that. This picture would be an illustration, not the source itself. Squash Racket (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What about this extensive source? --Wizzard (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not reliable, this is a family site. Please check it yourself next time. Squash Racket (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a Slovak POV, but whay shouldn't we represent it? Because Squash Racket doesn't want it? The source is official. --Olahus (talk) 16:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The "official" source is a family site. Haven't even heard Slovaks talking about "deportation of tens of thousands of children". Squash Racket (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

What family site are you talking about? Even so, we cannot interpret the sources anyhow with our personal points of view. The fact that you personally didn't hear Slovaks talking about is not a reliable argument. Why don't you better bring a serious counter-argument? --Olahus (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, guys. It is not anyone's POV, it is a fact. Why should the Slovak ministry of culture lie about this? It was not only a few thousands children. It is only a top of the iceberg. Where are those 300 000 Slovaks that lived in Hungary at the beginning of the 20th century? Which nationality they belong to now? --Wizzard (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The family site is a family site, the government memorial is not a third, neutral party. I'm still waiting for a neutral, reliable source for this, I hope "tens of thousands of deported Slovak children" didn't go unnoticed. Squash Racket (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You may require a "third party" only after you presented a counter-argument with a similar value than the one rejected by you. The picture is a reliable source, because the source is official. Do you have any source for your statement? You can't just say that "the source istn't good" - it's not a serious argument. --Olahus (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you talking about Squash Racket the minister of culture is not good source? And what is good source? some side from hungaria? Hungaria was aggressor but everything what said somebody from romania, serbia, slovakia ... (victims of magyarization) is lie. Just hungarian now what is thrue or not. Potocny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.232.186.99 (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not Olahus who decides when the community (not me) may require a neutral source. When it comes to controversial issues, governmental sources are not accepted for obvious reasons (neutrality). Squash Racket (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hungary and Slovakia are not enemies, so we cannot have the suspicion that Slovakia would try to denigrate Hungary. Slovakia and Hungary are today democratic countries, members of EU and NATO. Both countries are allies today. However, nobody tried to use the picture to proove some assertion in the text, so we cannot say the the picture is a source for something. --Olahus (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This photograph indicates that a monument makes the statement engraved on it. It doesn't tell us that the statement is true, or even that the current government officials agree with it. While it can be used as a source for the contents of the monument, it shouldn't be a sole source for historical events. Better to find a regularly printed source for the basic assertions and then add that a monument to makes these claims. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And whyt did you expect to read on this monument? An additional text that says "It's not an April Fool's joke" ? --Olahus (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please respect WP:CIV. Will Beback is an admin also dealing with reliability of sources.

If "tens of thousands of children" really were "deported to Hungarian territory", then presenting a reliable source confirming that won't be too difficult. The relations between Hungary and Slovakia are considered the worst in the European Union, so a Slovak memorial is simply not enough to prove the reliability of such a controversial text. Squash Racket (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Irony is not incivility. But let's return to our discussion: as I already said above, nobody tried to use the picture to proove some assertion in the text, so we cannot say the the picture is a source for an unquoted and disputed sentece. But sure, request an administrator if it is necessary. --Olahus (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you're still looking for a source, take here one. As I read in your userpage, you are an advanced speaker of German. --Olahus (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be contributed by a secondary school in BRATISLAVA . More reliable source please.

I already requested help at WP:RSN and I have to repeat my above comment: Will Beback is an admin also dealing with reliability of sources. Hope you'll read it this time.

Squash Racket (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Let an administrator decide about it. But, as I already said: nobody tried to use the picture to proove some assertion in the text, so we cannot say that the picture is or should be reagarded as a source for something. The picture shows an official Slovak point of view. It is official and therefore it is very reliable. Besides I never read anything about an possible objection from the Hungarian officials regarding this point of view. The only persons that dispute this point of view are Squash Racket (a Hungarian user that often tries to glorify Hungary) and some other Hungarian fellows of him. But remember WP:NPOV: your personal point of view regarding the official Slovak point of view about something that happened in the territory of present-day Slovakia is not an argument to remove this official statement of this country from the artice. --Olahus (talk) 21:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this will put an end to a lot of confusion: (use '1462' as a search keyword) http://src-h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/coe21/publish/no9_ses/13_swain.pdf --fz22 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)