Talk:Hungary

Template:WP1.0

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

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

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

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

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

Economy Data

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

I am wondering, why is an American politically biased groups economic data even mentioned on the wikipedia article for Hungary? There is a definite bias, not even from any particular hungarian political entity or party, but from an American Middle Right political organization which acknowledges its bias in judgement (in the fact that it is a firm specifically paid to give right leaning data observations). If the data is not from actual hungarian sources, or at the very least, a nonbiased source, it should not be posted as if it is factual. Imagine if the American Communist party was sourced as a valid reference for Singapore. It would show definite bias.

- 5th of July user

Where is the color version of this picture?

Anrew

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stears159 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies spotted

- "Cum Deo Pro Patria et Libertate" was the personal motto of Count Ferenc Rakoczi II during the national uprising he led between 1703-11. It is not a national motto any time. (Hungarian people and nation are divided and divisive constantly, that only ancient things can be motto or symbol, because anything relatively new would be debated and protested to death).

Although Hungary since the 1540s has been mixed catholic-protestant, from app. 1200 until 1844 the national anthem was the folk catholic religious hymn "Boldogasszony Anyank" (Blessed Lady, Our Mother) and the motto was "Regnum Mariae, Partona Hungariae". The political power was held by the catholic part, that is.

- Hungary now has minimum 660.000 gipsy (dark complexion tribal people originating from northern hindustan), this is the baseline all researchers accept. Some researchers count 800k and the general public is convinced they are 1 million. Therefore gipsy (tzigane) is 6,6% minimum among the population of Hungary, rather than the 2-3% the article quotes! They have extremely high replication rates, average 6 kids per mother, when an average hungarian white woman has just 1.7 child and the trend is shrinking even further. Only their criminality grows faster than their population!

There are also 200.000 jews living in Hungary, almost all of them, some 170.000 living in Budapest currently. (The countyside jewry was exterminated by nazis in 1944-45 and most survivors did not return to the villages.) 91.82.167.38 (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

"Hungarian people and nation are divided and divisive constantly" it is the proof of democracy. The artificial concordance and forcible "great undertsanding" in a society mean dicatatorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.1.143 (talk) 13:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Svatopluk

Could someone please explain why the Slavic states and Great Moravia get constantly deleted, even though the text is properly referenced? Moreover, the text in the pre-895 section jumps to referencing Svatopluks name with no context whatsoever, it is never explained who he was. Adding a paragraph on GM is therefore not only sensible, but necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wladthemlat (talk • contribs) 03:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't know where was the Svatopluk's state. It was in the North or in the South. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.6.2 (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Hungarians

The 400.000 number of the conqueror Hungarians is an obsolete myth and theory (or imagination) before the genetics based anthropology. This myth is conflicting with genetical (Y and mt.DNA) reality and evidence of old artifacts and bones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.1.182 (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Why does the article not speak about genetical biological reality instead of linguist and other obsolete tales? The conquering Hungarian tribes gave 5-10% of the entire population of early Hungary. According to genetics, the conqueror Hungarian tribes (and the later foreign western solfdiers) gave the ruling elite of medieval Hungary. More and more western historians think, that the conqueror tribes had foreign (non-Hungarian) turkic languages which was disappeared by time. Present-day Hungarian language is not based on the original language of conqueror tribes.

I don't know what you refer to. Please cite a source. Qorilla (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

All genetic labor state it (since the appear of the genetic researches of ethnic groups.) Again 400K Magyar is a theory or imagination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.1.182 (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you show a website which contains this information? The 400K was a sourced estimation. Qorilla (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

400K is just an imagination. Therefore it isn't interesting the existence of sources.