Talk:Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867

The equal status

Not a stub anymore, the article didn't present details of the accord. The equal status was impossible, the Emperor of Austria being greater of the King of Hungary. --Vasile 02:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You did a good job. 165.234.101.97 (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

So according to your [false] logic, the Austrian and German emperors were over the King of the United Kingdom and King of Spain.--Pharaph (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

austrian history

shouldnt it be austrian history, also?--Tresckow 10:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

shouldn't it be Hungarian history, also? :) (A common history) V 89.80.147.73 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Yes, actually as a matter of fact Ithink so too! By anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.115.178.29 (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Magyars -> Hungarians

although I am proud of being part of a nation that nobody calls on its name, still Hungarians in English are used to be called Hungarians, not magyars. V 89.80.147.73 20:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The authors are probably trying to emphasize the difference between Hungarian nationals and residents of the Kingdom in an awkward way. However, it's badly overused, in particular "Magyar government" is a big mistake, since there was no ethnical census for big positions; in fact, politicians of German, Croatian, Slovak and other nationalities regularly featured in power.

That said, this article is a real mess as of now, with a lot of unbased statements and a quite a bit of anti-Hungary bias included. It does not make any kind of effort to point out non-Hungarian support or Hungarian opposition of the Compromise, nor to mention its (mostly detrimental) social and cultural impact on all the constituent nations, soundly displayed by works of Kafka, Musil, Hašek, etc. I think the article is in desperate need for the attention of a history professional, somebody familiar with Wiki templates should please mark it as such. 84.0.217.62 23:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article is one-sided (anti-Hungarian), lacks of many important details , so I think it would be better to rewrite it from the beginning. Barlac 18:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move to Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. — TKD::Talk 00:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The current use of the German term over a Hungarian one isn't the most neutral option. Compromise of 1867 is very neutral, and also more descriptive to Anglophones. Encarta, Britannica and Hutchinson encyclopedias all use the term so it is commonly accepted.Rex 16:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support. per nom.Rex 08:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weakly oppose Google scholar has over twice as many links to Ausgleich and Austria-Hungary as to "Compromise of 1867" and Austria-Hungary. Does EB ot the other encyclopedias have articles under the target, or do they explain Ausgleich as "the compromise of 1867"? I oppose the notion that we should be more politically correct than English=speaking scholarship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Brittanica uses Comprimis of 1867 as the article name, and explains that in German it's called Ausgleich. (as does Brittanica concise [1]) Encarta uses it too, adding between bars ('Ausgleich'), [2] but not mentioning it again when discussing the compromise.Rex 08:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support "Compromise" seems to be used widely enough in English. Check also this Google fight (26k vs 11k) and these two Scholar searches (667 vs 210). Since "Compromise of 1867" is a much more specific term than "Ausgleich", I believe that the above search by Septentrionalis does not produce accurate results regarding this matter. (What about "Compromise in 1867", or "the 1867 Compromise", or an "Ausgleich" between other parties?) KissL 10:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree that the title "Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867" (proposed below) is even better than just "Compromise of 1867". KissL 10:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nom and KissL. "Compromise of 1867" is the English name of this event, and that is reason enough to move it. K. Lásztocska 14:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support to rename it to Comprimise of 1867, though I think Austro-Hungarian Compromise would be more clear and it is also widely used. --Koppany 19:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 as per above. Zello 23:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support - it always wondered me why the title is in German when there is English name. I support move to either Compromise of 1867 or Austro-Hungarian Compromise (of 1867). Alternative names can of course be mentioned, but the title will be clearer with either of these options. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 12:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I would say that Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 is the best option. Clearest, most specific, easily understood to somebody just browsing around...etc. K. Lásztocska 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true. That title gives immediately some pieces of information - what between who and when, but Ausgleich has no information value for those not knowing German plus I fear it isn't very neutral in this case. Compromise of 1867 has a bit vague meaning, but still better than Ausgleich. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 21:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support -The most common name should be used. In this case i feel based on the presented evidence, that is "Compromise of 1867". Hobartimus 16:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per the statistics presented by Kissl. I would prefer Koppany's more specific version in the form proposed by K. Lásztocska ("Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867") though. Tankred 19:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. K. Lásztocska, Tankred and MarkBA version of Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 seems to me to be the most clear and appropiate name. R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  06:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Comment support Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 as per above. --Koppany 13:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose but support Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 as per above. "Ausgleich" is used in English (see also "Anschluss") and is better than the vapid "Compromise of 1867" which conveys no intrinsic meaning. Seriously - how many compromises occurred in 1867 around the world? István 15:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support a move to Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 per WP:UE. Although Ausgleich might be used more in scholarly literature dealing specifically with the subject, Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 is more appropriate for general encyclopedic usage. (Not that it matters but the German version requires qualifying as well.) — AjaxSmack 22:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: OK, so is this consensus to move the page to Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867? I support...K. Lásztocska 17:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This should be moved back

"General Encyclopedia Usage" is a vague criterion: we should be influenced by what standard scholarly descriptions are. And the standard scholarly description in English is Ausgleich. Slac speak up! 09:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Ausgleich (Austro-Hungarian)" is good, but "Compromise of 1867" is bewildering, because without a context, the collision risk seems overwhelming when we have an encyclopedia treating almost everything conceivable, including a "Compromise of 1867" between the (imaginary) author Fritz Schultz and his (imaginary) wife Emma. Said: Rursus (☻) 10:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Serbs

Serbs were also disappointed because of abolishing Military Frontier. -- Bojan  07:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is true (and a commonly refered to reason for the start of WWI). Please find a source and add a paragraph in the text. Said: Rursus (☻) 10:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Date?

Does the Compromise have a date in the year 1867? Said: Rursus (☻)

Yeah, 29 of May, 1867: see f.ex. Ausgleich Chronology. Needed for my deanachronizer database, used for translating German Astronomer to Bayuvarian Astronomer. Said: Rursus (☻) 11:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In 19th Century Europe's Context

This article succinctly illustrates how the Austro-Hungarian Compromise ties into broader ideas of European nationalism and changing power relations in the nineteenth century. It may be improved upon by more background on the constitutional reforms that had failed prior to the Compromise, but its further reading section provides the detail that the article uses to make a convincing argument for the complicated nature of Austro-Hungarian politics and how the future of the two nations was ultimately bound together. It certainly does not provide a Hungarian bias on the issues presented therein. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krimpul (talk • contribs) 18:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Slavic nationalism

Though it may not have been the original intention in 1867, in subsequent year this increasingly came to be viewed as a Germano-Hungarian pact to repress Slavic nationalisms and self-determination of Slavs (an important part of why the Treaty of Trianon borders were set where they were)... AnonMoos (talk) 19:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

And Don't forget, the Panslavism was the world's first racial based (racist) ideology. It determined the "Slavic Race", which proved a naive dream in th light of modern Y DNA and mt.DNA researches. The Nazi Pan-Germanism collapsed after the WW2, but the Pan-slavist ideology is virulent until this day.

Message for User:Norden1990

Your text does not fit in the The status of Kingdom of Hungary before the revolution section: "Since 1867, the Austrian and Hungarian customs union agreement had to be renegotiated"

Also, why did you reinsert the text "The Compromise of 1867 was meant to be a temporary solution" that is unsourced for a long time? 79.117.186.90 (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Excessive quotation/copyright infringement

This edit, although not plagiarism because the source is credited and the quotes are clearly marked, is still a copyright infringement. The amount of copyright text quoted (including the translation) far exceeds what is acceptable per Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. The quoted segments need to be shortened to at most one or two sentences, and the rest of the content should be appropriately summarised. See also this section of Wikipedia:Quotations. – Voceditenore (talk) 16:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the excessive quotes in their entirety from the Adoption section, but have left the references. The material is available in this version for editors who wish to re-add a summary of the quoted material in your own words per the guidelines above. Note also that a translation of a copyright work, is still a copyright infringement if excessively quoted. Voceditenore (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

The quotes in question were not excessively long, quoting four sentences is far from overuse, and Wikipedia articles contain many similar sized or larger quotes. The English translation of the Hungarian language original was my own work, and I provided it for the readers’ convenience, in accordance with Wikipedia rules on non-English language quotes.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Maghasito, I have once again removed your excessive quotation of copyright material. Please read the guidance links above and do not keep restoring it. You must summarize the material in your own words. Voceditenore (talk) 06:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hungary pre 1849

The text directly above: 'The status of Kingdom of Hungary before the revolution', and directly beneath it seems not to belong to the subject at hand and somewhat interpretative and contradicting itself. However autonomous Hungary may have been in this period, it was a country included in the 1804 creation and it was restored to that with the Constitution of 1849 (albeit with considerable less autonomy). If Hungary's inclusion was only formal, why is it suggested in other parts in the text that it wasn't included at all? Seems like an exercise in nationalist apologetics to me and I suggest it should go (or be heavily rewritten).Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Autonomous? Why? Has an autonomous territory own fully separated government? Own legislative body , parliament? Own idependent legal system without any common laws (which did not follow to the Roman law, nor Anglo-saxon type, but a third way? Has an autonomous territory own court system? Has an autonomous territory own customs borders and customs system which separated it from all other Habsburg dynastical territories? Has an autonomous territory to sign independently any international commercial/trade agreements with other states? Has an autonomous territory own army , and own separated right for the declaration of war (See Napoleonic wars, When Austrian Empire was in war with France since 1805, Kingdom of Hungary was in war only from 1809.) Has an autonomous territory the own right to grant separated (non-Austrian) passport for its own people? Has an autonomous territory own separated budget, Hungary spent only 10% of its inland revenues for common dyplomatic and milatary actions? Have you ever read the

Yes, "The status of Kingdom of Hungary before the revolution" section is very necessary and important for many ignorant people, who do not know the details of legal reality, and the status of Hungarian state. Without this important information many readers will believe, that the Hungarians demanded extreme and weird right for themselves, and the "good" Austria made an unique exception with the "nationalist" Hungarians in 1867. In the reality, Hungary only reclaimed its former status and rigts from the Habsburgs, after the Austrians sufferend many defeats from the ITalians French and finally Prussian military powers. Austrian state came close to economic collapse too. Have you ever read the Personal union article?

--Prudoncty (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You're quoting circumstantial evidence and rely on semantics for you argument and that won't do. What an autonomous entity is or what it is not is not the question at hand. Neither is what people might or might not think about an occurrence that is almost 170 years in the past. The question is just, was the KoH an entity involved in the 1804 creation. The answer to that is clearly yes. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You have write only your private opinion and imaginations and even your pure fantasy. This topic belongs to the academic LEGAL historian experts. Only the opinion of academic legal historians is matter. Hungary was not affected in any sense by the 1804 creation of Austrian Empire. Hungarians had no Emperors, they had kings, which were crowned in Hungary, and they had to take oath for the Hungarian medieval constitution. Do you want to know it better than academic legal historians? --Prudoncty (talk) 12:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The declaration of 1804 concerned all the possessions of the Habsburg primogeniture including Hungary. Hungary remained a Kingdom with it's own parliament and constitution, but nevertheless became subject to the Institution that was created, being the Austrian Imperial Crown. The revolutionary "Pillersdorf Constitution" (A provisional constitution for a few weeks in 1848) had excluded Hungary as a crown land as it had declared independence in that year. The 1849 Constitution (the first real Constitution the Empire ever had) reverted that. Hungary lost many of its seperate institutions as a consequence of the episode. See also

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillersdorfsche_Verfassung

Why does the (sourced) text say: 'The Kingdom of Hungary was only formally part of the Empire of Austria' when the rest of the section argues this wasn't the case at all? Nobody denies that Hungary had it's own government. Why does it go on to (same source) quote an item of legislation from 1790, which is clearly well before the declaration of 1804? The next quote, from about 1919 is from hearings before the US Congress about the peace treaties of 1919. How is that verifiable or even to the point? How does the fact that the laws of the KoH were not affected, pertain to this question? It's another subject altogether. If the section goes on to state (again sourced) that: 'the country was part of the other Lands of the empire largely through the common monarch', in effect it states (just like the first sentence of the section) that Hungary wás subject to the Institution created in 1804. The whole thing lacks consistency! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The book by Laszlo, quoted in these texts litteraly says this on page six: "From the perspective of the Court, since 1723 regnum Hungariae had been a hereditary province of the dynasty’s three main branches on both Lines. From the perspective of the orstzág, Hungary was a regnum independens, a seperate Land as Article X of 1790 stipulated. Hungary was connected to the other lands of the Empire largely through the monarch. The Imperial matters- foreign policy, defence and state finance- were handled by the monarch as a reservata exercized by him as the king of Hungary. In 1804 Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of of the Empire of Austria. The Court reassured the diet , however, that the assumption of the monarch’s new title did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary." As I suspected some of the situations from before 1804, as described in the quote, are presented in the article as pertaining to the period after 1804. "Regnum independens" is a decription from the pre 1804 Habsburg Lands situation. "Connected to the other lands of the Empire largely through the monarch" is also a description of the situation in the pre 1804 Habsburg Lands. And finally in the middle of Laszlo's text, quaintly overlooked by the editors of the section in the article: "In 1804 Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of of the Empire of Austria", which is what this is about and the question at hand! I have some rewriting to do! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I totally support your edits. But what is the meaning of "largely without changing the status quo that existed between them before 1804"? 82.119.98.162 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, basically that means that the internal workings of the Empire, formerly the Habsburg Lands, didn't change all that much after 1804. The autonomy of the different crown lands was, at first, mostly maintained. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I saw you made a few edits. I'm OK with them. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

You confused things. Hungary was part of the Habsburg Empire. (Which is an unofficial appellation, it reflects to a DYNASTY) But Hungary was not part of Austrian Empire. Have you read the Rersonal union article? "hearings before the US Congress about the peace treaties of 1919" Do you think about professor count Albert Apponyi, an internationally regarded expert of international law, and Law History? He was enough good for the best universities of contemporary Europe, and later he was an expert in the league of nations. He was member of the cabinet as minister of eduction during the Austro-Hungarian times, and member of the parliament for many decades. US.President John Quincy Adams sent him a letter , as the most famous expert of international law for his 80th birthday. After this career, do you want to know the status of Hungary better than Count Apponyi?

"other Lands of the empire largely through the common monarch" It is exacly support the personal union status of Hungary. "seperate Land as Article X of 1790 stipulated" Yes, this article was in force until 1918. ""In 1804 Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary" No, there were no Emperors of Hungary. Every monarchical order was declared as "King of Hungary" insted of Emperor of Austria or Emperor. Habsburgs did not even used any imperial stamp in Hungarian official correspondence. (Because he was just a king of Kingdom of Hungary. You didn't reflect any important issiu: The customs borders, which existed between Hungary and the other parts of the Empire. The official language was latin until 1844, and later Hungarian (German was the official language in all other parts of contemporary Habsburg ruled areas), There were only Austrian passports and Hungarian passports in the Habsburg ruled territories. Hungarian Passports 1700-1860 (Hungarian and French language) http://hbml.archivportal.hu/data/images/egyeb/kiallitas08_mod.jpg Hungarian passports From 1867 to 1990 (Hungarian and French and language and later in English language and later russian too) http://hbml.archivportal.hu/data/images/egyeb/kiallitas29.jpg

Own international commercial treaties, own budget. Were there any concrete power or right of the Austrian Imperial Council (Herrenhaus and Abgeordnetenhaus) or the Austrian State Chancellor and Minister presidents over Kingdo of Hungary? No they simply hadn't. So call it as autonomy is laughable. --Prudoncty (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has argued that the KoH ceased to exist after 1804. Nobody has argued that there was an "Emperor of Hungary". Just that the overarching Empire that was created in 1804 included that Kingdom. The word autonomous isn't used in the article. It's been used on this talkpage to describe the differing positions, the constituent parts had towards the overarching Empire. Did you read Laszlo? What did Apponyi actually say to the US Congress? And about what period was he talking? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

"Hungray was not part of HRE, and it was not part of Austrian "Kaiserstat" of 1806."

Title The Quarterly Review, Volume 293 Author George Walter Prothero Editors William Gifford, Sir John Taylor Coleridge, John Gibson Lockhart, Whitwell Elwin, William Macpherson, William Smith, Sir John Murray IV, Rowland Edmund Prothero (Baron Ernle) Publisher John Murray, 1955 Original from the University of Virginia

https://books.google.com/books?id=7Ww-AAAAYAAJ&q=%22Hungary+was+not+part%22++Austria+Habsburg&dq=%22Hungary+was+not+part%22++Austria+Habsburg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YE9cVdK-D8mjsgGQ-YDwCw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA --Prudoncty (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you confused the term of the officially de iure non existent but de facto existent "Habsburg Monarchy" with the de jure and de facto existent Empire of Austria. Bohemia Galicia bacame integral part of Austrian Empire, but Kingdom of Hungary was not part of it.--Prudoncty (talk) 09:20, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm very well aware of the difference. I'm also very well aware of the meaning of both terms. And not all that confused either. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Than why do you iterate your fantasy, that Kingdom of Hungary was part of Austrian Empire? It was a Habsburg realm, but not Austrian.--Prudoncty (talk) 12:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's see what contemporary sources say about this: [3] - the text is from The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia (1832). 91.148.23.58 (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Prothero, great historian as he may have been, was wrong in his facts, in his conclusion from these wrong facts and in his logic reaching these conclusions. His “Austrian Kaiserstaat of 1806” is of course the Austrian Kaiserstaat of 1804. Furthermore that state is not the successor to the Holy Roman Empire, as Prothero seems to assume. The two Empires existed next to each other (even overlapping as historian Joachim Streisand remarked) from 1804 to 1806. And even if the Austrian Empire had been the successor state to the HRE, it still doesn’t follow that THEREFORE, Hungary couldn’t have been part of it. Also, if the Empire’s were overlapping, as Streisand rightly remarks, Lands outside of the HRE must have been part of it. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In 1841, the author Samuel Griswold Goodrich includes Hungary in the borders of the Austrian Empire: [4] 77.234.230.56 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Only experts in law history are reliable sources. Samuel Griswold Goodrich don't belongs to them.--Prudoncty (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Samuel Griswold Goodrich is a "proletarian", isn't he? 82.119.98.162 (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Do not be ridiculous. A simple historian is not considered as expert. Law historians are lawyers and historians, they are expert in constituional law and legal development.--Prudoncty (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hungary became part of the Austrian Empire after the revolution: (CHECKMATE!)

Section 1 of the Constitution for the empire of Austria (check it here) declared that the kingdom of Hungary is an Austrian crown-lands. This sentence annihilated the Hungarian Constitution sworn to by fourteen kings of the House of Hapsburg. Hungary was never a crown -land of the empire of Austria, but an independent kingdom, the crown of which was conferred on the possessors of certain hereditary provinces, in which Hungary was never included.

Domokos G. Kosáry, ‎Orsolya Szakály: Hungary and International Politics in 1848-1849 - Page 7

Domokos G. Kosáry, ‎Steven Béla Várdy, ‎Danubian Research Center: History of the Hungarian nation - Page 129--Prudoncty (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

--Prudoncty (talk) 15:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The only thing I see happening here is that Austria adopted a constitution in 1849. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

About Hungary, Act 10 of 1790 „regnum independens, propriam habens consistentiam et constitutionem nulli alteri regno obnoxium* stating that Hungary was regnum independens, that is governable only in accordance--Prudoncty (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1790. That's fourteen years before 1804. Doesn't pertain to the period involved.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Wrong, Act 10 of 1790 remained in force until 1918. Hungary had old medieval consitution like Kingdom of England. Monarchs had no right to overwrite constitutions.--Prudoncty (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If so, then probably, like in England, lots of stuff that remained on the statute books was implicitly repealed. Like this one. Fact is and remains that in 1804 a provision came into force that may or may not have had some consequences for your article. Interpreting primary sources is a hazardous thing by the way! There are good secondary sources to do that work for us.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Not even primary sources supports your fantasy. It is strange, when a cartographer (or whatever you are) try to play a law-historian expert...--Prudoncty (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

restored original referenced version, which contained relevant informations about the status of Hungary before 1848.

I restored the original referenced version, which contained relevant informations about the status of Hungary before 1848. I don't know why is the historical reality so painful for some editors.

We must involve some sentences that the Austrian intervention against the royalist Batthiány government, which was a 100% illegal act, which was condemned by the public opinion of conemporary free and democtratic word (USA UK France) --Prudoncty (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

USER:Prudoncty BLOCKED for sockpuppetry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.12.90 (talk) 21:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

I don't understand the current edit-war nor am I particular interested. My only comment would be that there seems to be an attempt by some Hungarian nationalists to try and persuade us that Hungary from 1867 to 1914 was an almost-independent democratic state run by a group of benevolent Hungarians and that the people living in Greater Hungary were happy with the situation. Obviously this is complete fantasy and we mustn't go down that route here. Nigej (talk) 11:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically it's about the period 1804-1849 and what happens here is a spillover from what's happening at talk:Austrian Empire. The text being reintroduced recently is a modification of text remove by consensus from this and other articles back in May. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Nigej, if you don't understand and you are not interested, how dare you make any accuations without good-faith? What kind of prejudication is this? How dare you say such superficial and ridicoulus statements where you do not even got the corresponding timeline? It is in perfect accordance with your deep ingonarance regarding the topic. No "Hungarian nationlists" are involved, Hungary was a sovereign (= independent legally) state with a more developed personal union with Austria regarding some joint institutions. "Greater Hungary" is an unofficial term referring to the original Hungary, although we could call that just simple as "Hungary" and today's Hungary as "Littlier Hungary". Without judging your phrase, what is a fact, Hungary that times were the most liberal state of Europe and the first who introduced the minority laws, the people and ethnic minorites had more rights than any other country vica-versa. Unlike i.e. Great Britain, where non-English people were persecuted and discriminated in many ways. So the "complete fantasy" can be addressed only to you, who did not listen even about what we are debating on!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC))

There are basically four things bothering me about this question

a)That words like “formally”, “lawful” and “legal” are used in a way that strangely indicate things that are not in the dictionaries for them.

b)That, as a consequence of a) the article, according to USER:KIENGIR is supposed to say in one paragraph that Hungary is a part of the Empire of Austria (as the sources indeed clearly indicate), while some paragraphs later the exact opposite is stated. Which is inconsistent and OR, because it is based on editor interpretation of legal text

c)That some sourced text for the situation describing the composite monarchy (pre 1804), keeps cropping up in descriptions of the post 1804 situation.

d)Copyvio issues.

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

a) No way, everything is clearly explained in the talk pages

b) No way, this has been many times clarified, only you are the one who does not understand, how dare you to mislead Katie? I never said "Hungary is part of Empire of Austria" (as the sources clearly indicate it is just a formal membership by assumption), in other pharagraphs the lawful affiliations are mentioned, later the details while Hungary's famous status was different like other Crownland's. It is not inconsistent, not more than 90 IQ is enough to understand my professional coherent argumentation. It is based on the source's text.

c) No way, since no relations changed between Austria and Hungary after 1804, so everything is valid, anyway the corresponding source speaks clearly after 1804. The section with detailed information of course contains some earlier descriptions to demonstrate the special status, but they remained still valid after, so they are not outdated information.

d) No way, just another casus belli to avoid detailed and professional information on a bit complex situation, that is average in Wikipedia is similar cases/relations.

Just read the details in the other two talk pages. You can involve lawyers or high-level scientist with a huge logical inference capability regarding satisfiable advanced expressions.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC))

fully protected/1RR restriction

Since there seem to be no grownups at the table, I've locked the article for a week so everyone can put on their adult clothes and sit nicely while discussing. Upon consensus or expiration of protection, whichever comes first, editors are restricted to one revert every 24 hours. If you're not familiar with WP:ARBEURO, read it right now if you intend to edit this page or in this area. Katie^talk 00:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Katie,

Please read the argumentation in the Austrian Empire Talk page: Hungary section or earlier Kingdom of Hungary 1526-1867 Talk page: Austrian Empire 1804-1867 section. I know it's long but it is needed to understand fully everything, also Hebel's earlier argumentation with others, where it can be clearly seen how he develops his false idea. Katie, being nice is evidential, but consider after a long time you prove your point but the other party pretends not to understand although I am sure he understands, just he is too proud of his edit that he achieved after 6 years of struggle with an alleged "consensus" with an IP address where history experts were not present. In one ANI incident I heard personal opinions (from editor) has no place on Wikipedia. Any consensus or withdraw should not count on someone's ego, only factual and professional approach has to dominate! Please recruit some Administrators that are willing to soend time and read carefully the content of the talk pages mentioned, here is almost nothing. Despite the corresponding article belongs to Central-Europe, still the directives of WP:ARBEURO are valid?(KIENGIR (talk) 02:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC))

I just checked, the article is falsely assigned to "Start-Class Eastern Europe articles" "Unknown-importance Eastern Europe articles" "WikiProject Eastern Europe articles", since it belongs to Central-Europe. Also this complies to the Kingdom of Hungary 1526-1867 article. As I checked, even Wikiproject Eastern Europe falsely include Hungary and I even see claim to remove Central-European countries, I will notify them also, what a mistake, Jesus!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC))

How Independent was Hungary?

We seem to have an editor who is trying to stress the independence of Hungary (or Greater Hungary, or whatever we wish to call it) pre-1848. The first point is that the issue is not directly relevant to the current article except that it is of some interest to compare the RELATIVE independence of Hungary pre-1848 and post-1867. Just listing facts about the pre-1848 situation seems of no relevance here. The second point is that throughout this period Hungary was part of The Empire (under various names). As such any idea that Hungary was an independent state makes no sense at all. Clearly it had considerable internal autonomy but when we look at the post-1867 powers that the Emperor (or King or whatever he might be called) had, as listed in the article (supreme warlord, all decisional authority on the structure, organization and administration of the army, appointment of the senior officials, right to declare war, commander-in-chief of the army; the right to declare state of emergency; the right of preliminary royal assent of every bill the Cabinet Council wanted to report to the National Assembly, right to veto any law passed by the National Assembly; the right to dissolve the National Assembly; the right to appoint and dismiss the members of the Cabinet Council), it is clear that he could, in reality, do anything he wished (as indeed you would expect, given that he was a dictator). As I said above it is interest to compare the relative independence of Hungary pre-1848 and post-1867. This needs to be done, not just in some legalistic way but also looking at the reality of the situation. Nigej (talk) 16:40, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically this matter spilt over from a conflict on the pages Austrian Empire and Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867). Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Nigej, not just one editor, anyway the information was more years present without any real debate, and we see no viable reason to remove it because it is against objectivity, factuality and are important indicators of the relation of Austria and Hungary. You should call it officially, as Kingdom of Hungary or shorter Hungary, unofficial designations referring to it's terrories charachteristics is irrelevant. I see anyway relevant that section since the legalty of those information still existed in this timeline and anyway the Hungarians did not recognize many of the acts of the Austrian after 1849, moreover a short overview to the development of the Compromise is an important part to really understand the preliminary causes. What you state after that is just your personal opinion, and we speak not about ideas but legal matters, to hide them is totally unfair. You have an idea about this "considerable autonomy", but this does not match on legal terms. If I'd say Great-Britain has a "considerable-autonomy" because anyway what NATO tells them or other affiliation bond them to act and obey some reagulations, so it cannot be regarded as an "independent state"? Ridicoulous, as long as Great Britain on paper is independent, you have to recognize this also on other countries. Legal matters decide such questions, and the article does not contain just legal matters but a clear overview of the article officially and "unofficially", de jure and de facto. How many Wikipedia articles should be rewritten, if we start to check in de jure independent countries how de facto indepent are...then you'd find as much reason as you can say which country why cannot be regarded "independent". The person precisely you talk about became the Emperor of Austria, but before/after without interruption he was The King of Hungary, and some ignorant and superficial approach of "whatever he migh be called..." does not belong here, since The King of Hungary is elected by the Hungarian Diet and the Pragmatica Sanction was also only valid for Hungary, because the Hungarian Diet accepted it on their own will, that's why the Hungarian Crown was not a vassal crown, but an independent crown. If once David Cameron will be the President of the EU, Great Britain will not anymore independent? Or in case after Elizabeth II a new Queen/King Britain will have who also title of a newly created Empire, Britain would have only a "considerable internal autonomy" because he could do everything? What is this? If Sigismund of Luxemburg was also the Holy Roman Emperor and at the same time the King of Hungary, Hungary was not anymore an independent state??? It was still, please do not make jokes with me, ok? Without any professional attitude and approach noone should intervene with good faith in this matter, moreover without knowing precisely historical matters and former undebated precedences that immediately shows the fallacy of the argumentation!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC))

There are clearly different degrees of "independence". Some argue that being in the EU means that the UK and Hungary are not truly independent, and that is true to some extent. States have always signed up to treaties. When these are freely entered into the loss of independence is generally small. That applies to the UK and Hungary joining NATO. We can also consider Hungary during the Soviet era when Hungary was nominally independent but was in reality a "puppet state" with the Soviet's firmly in charge. The reality is that there is a huge difference between Hungary/UK joining NATO and Hungary before World War I and that is the fact that the Emperor/King was a dictator running the army. To me, this indicates that Hungary at this time was much more in the "autonomy" range than the "independent" range. Even though the UK and Hungary are in NATO and the EU and the UN etc they still maintain their own armed forces and can go their own way when they choose. This was certainly not true of Hungary in the 19th century. We can see from the list of rights that the emperors had post-1867 that he was firmly in charge, and the reality was that he was firmly in charge before that date too. The emperors were happy to leave Hungary alone for long periods as long as things were relatively peaceful and Hungary provided it's share of the money to maintain the emperor and his army. Nigej (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the status of the Kingdom of Hungary between 1849-1867 and between 1867-1918 is not in dispute. The problem arises that while between 1804 and 1849 the Kingdom of Hungary was a part of the overarching Imperial state of Austria (which all sources clearly indicate), it was ruled as a separate Realm, much like it was before, during the composite monarchy of before 1804. Formally by it's own institutions and without a formal role for institutions of the Imperial state of which it was a part. It clearly was a state with a very special status within the Empire of Austria. The conflict arose when language was (re)introduced into the three articles to the effect that it was denied that Hungary even was a part of the Empire of Austria between 1804 and 1849, which was reverted by me. Because it went against clear statements in the sources and because it was OR interpretation of legal text and of the secondary sources. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Nigej,your personal views about the examples introduced does not reflect on anything new, and even the claim of any of them is a worse or better comparison. It does not matter, since we could find more than thousand similar in history. Wikipedia have at least contain the official (= "nominal", as you said), legal matters, after any de facto argumentation or hints behind the situation may be presented. If now I 'd edit the Great Britain page and would remove any source claiming/proving it's legal independence, you would accept it? Moreover, if I would add in reality i.e. "The U.S. lobby decides", or what if I'd introduce it for Afghanistan? So If someone would hide Hungary's legal status after 1948 and only advertise an ad hoc, non-official designation, you'd consider it's fair? "Emperor/King was a dictator running the army" -> This is your POW, let say it is almost true in history for every country and it's King, anyway is there on any page Wikipedia this advertised in an official way? So becuase Hungary had Kings, he never was independent? This is the conclusion, that is obviously false. So the Austrian Empire was also not independent....and any country...Today in Hungary the President is the main commander of the Army...So János Áder is a dictator and Hungary is not independent? "this time was much more in the "autonomy" range than the "independent" range" -> this is again your POW and it belongs to the outside detailed analysis of the subject, but it cannot hinder the legal status quo...so if you have a house on your name, but I, user Kiengir decide it's just a paper, you don't have anything but I gave to you that flat, the latter should be advertised and the document or it's reference it is legally your's should be hindered? So what is counted today? You are enquestioning the base of our society. Nothing legal matters, just ad hoc opinions on apparent, sometimes "de facto" things?? You fell on your own trap, and you are caught here again!

"Even though the UK and Hungary are in NATO and the EU and the UN etc they still maintain their own armed forces and can go their own way when they choose. This was certainly not true of Hungary in the 19th century." -> FALSE, also that time time officially and freely elected King of the Hungarian Diet maintained his country's "own armed forces and can go their own way when they choose". Here is the catch! Because you could have only true on this, if the Hungarians would not elect freely the King or would not have accepted freely, on their own will the Pragmatica Sanction! Here is your great mistake and slip! The fact the Hungarian King had also an other title, does not mean anything, and again a legal nonsense what you are saying! So Poland would be also not independent of would manage her armed forces because their King is also the King of Hungary? Also Hungary was not independent in the 15th century because Sigismund of Luxemburg managed the army of the Holy Roman Empire? You have an emberassing deficit of logic inference! Imaginary situation: If you are the president of a Golf Club in Netherlands and at the same time you are the President of Vauxhall Motors. Co. in the UK, the two organizations/firms are not anymore independent? Although they are legally was founded as an own instutition without any affilitation of other firms/comglomerates's anything. Just because of your person, they will just have a considerable autonomy? Did you see such happening in world history? You are not afraid to be ridiculed?

You still did not understood, that time Hungary is independent and the Hungarian King is ruling, that was elected freely by the Hungarians? As you did not get the Austrian Emperor has no legal matters with Hungary! Not before or after 1867! The Hungarian King was in charge for Hungary, not the Austrian Emperor! You intervene in a topic where not even you're not professional, but average, obvious thing you do not get. Persons having more posts or positions in separate institutions does not mean they are united or one post can be substituted with an other. If a football clubs Coach is also the Prime minister, then the Football Club will still lead by the elected Coach, and not by the elected Prime Minister in any official and legal terms! Only formally you could insist the Prime Minister' rule, as long the independent football club in his own does not decided that the Coach post is changed to the Prime Minister's post, and as long it is not written in any official paper! If you'd put such a question on trial, the judge would laugh on you and you'll lose in the first round!

Gerard von Hebel,

"overarching Imperial state of Austria (which all sources clearly indicate)" -> your POW, source's can indicate many things that are better de facto but not de jure, as I proved with with former ANI cases, and even if the majority of sources are false in legal terms, the legal terms should never be ignored, since the editor cannot mislead the reader. The source we use clearly emphasized the formal membership, that is not legal membership because of article X.

"Formally by it's own institutions and without a formal role for institutions of the Imperial state of which it was a part. It clearly was a state with a very special status within the Empire of Austria." -> LEGALLY by it's own institutions and without a LEGAL role for institutions of the Imperial state of which it was only formally a part. It clearly was a state with a very special status unlike other Crownlands incorporated to the Austrian Empire.

"The conflict arose when language was (re)introduced into the three articles to the effect that it was denied that Hungary even was a part of the Empire of Austria between 1804 and 1849, which was reverted by me. Because it went against clear statements in the sources and because it was OR interpretation of legal text and of the secondary sources." -> CORRECTLY: The conflict arose when those elements were reintroduced to the affected articles that was clearly showing all aspects of the situation, that Hungary was only formally member of the Austrian Empire, and some important details of the legal separate country status and other affiliations of the two subject that was totally different like the other crowlands incorporated to the Empire. This was reverted by Hebel - the true reason can only be suspected, since Hebel's claim does not stand and his other other reference of some Wiki guidelines are just methods to be against the redemption of the article - although is was a fully supported by also the clear statements of the sources.

Unfortnately Hebel seems like a robot, he even repeat the same non-valid things like he'd be a believer. We clearly see his earlier argumentations before the current conflict, as he misunderstood and turned upside down the Laszlo source and it's content! Althoug we offered solutions embracing his additions fully, never removed only expanded and properly inserted in the earlier text, with an obvious bugfix when Hebel forget's from the source important words or he simply write such sentences in such a connotation that was NOT present in the source or it not any means may be concluded for them. Moreover, he is heavily against to show the important legal matters between the two countries, although - opposing to his false claim - it is NEITHER in contradiction with the source's content, NOR simple logic. In every proposal of his he tries to sell the same invalidity with really controversional, non-legal and ad-hoc interpretated non-factual content, although, in some question he evolved - legal separate status - and hopefully he won't anymore coup/misinterpret the Laszlo source's corresponding pharagraph. Why the hell he is disturbed if - like most of the cases - Wiki contaion all interpretations? Poetrical question: is he an Austrian Empire maniac or who is disturbed by Hungary's legal status? I do not consider him anti-Hungarian, be we know how other nations try to question even non-debated legal terms of Hungary, and - respect for exemptions - he'll meet easily many supportive "benevolent" IP adresses, even without any demand....

In WW2, regarding Slovakia, only that information should be left "The first Slovak state was a non-independent puppet state lead by Hitler-dictator" and we should ignore "Slovakia was an independent state lead by Josef Tiso, on the Axis side". We should ignore "Before 1939. 09. 01. the new territorial changes were recognized internationally by all sides as legal, but after the Allies did not recognize anymore the dissolution of Czechoslovakia and regarded the Czechoslovak government in-exile the official representant's of the state". So, dear Hebel, how much controversion is here yes? If you check the Wiki page of the "List of the countries United states involved in War or similar" you will see a mutually exclusive connotation. Czechoslovakia was the Ally of U.S., Slovakia was the ally of Axis. Legally impossible, de facto impossible a state to exist or not exist, or de facto existing or not existing...Why don't you delete one of them and leave only that you like to be a "realm"? What the majority of sources will say? Since this is the English Wikipedia, you could say the Anglo-Saxon viewpoint has to be represented -> Slovakia did not exist, Czechoslovakia exist -> but in reality the Czechoslovakian state did not exist, but Slovakia exist -> CONTROVERSION OR LIE if only the first viewpoint would be represented. Moreover, reality or legalty is not that the the Allies recognize, since belligerent sides traditionally does not recognize each other's legal matters...So it cannot be ignored the Axis powers recognized Slovakia and Slovakia also de facto existed, and also that no Czechoslovakian status quo existed....if there is two opposing de jure, de facto may decide the question, but de jure cannot be ignored! Would it be fair if you'd remove/delete from the related articles all Kingdom of Hungary 1920-1946 reference and even prohibit to mention this expression, becase according to the Allies it was only a "de facto" state? But according to the Axis it was a legal state. This has not any controversion bothering you? Because regarding your logic - comparing to the current debate - de facto is more important than de jure, than please modify also all Czechoslovakia 1939-1946 related article and remove this non-existing thing! Also remove that Cyprus is legally recognized as a country, and only leave it is Half-Greece and Half-Turkey and please remove it's membership of EU, because the country is member or non-member, how could it be a member if one side is not member?? Why don't you "correct" this dear Hebel really? Exactly the next sentence/section clearly states the "opposite", yes? De jure goes to trash, yes? Palestine is existing or not existing, legally or formally? Who recognize the 1967 borders and who not? The current debate does not even approach the weight of these questions, since we have a clear, undebated legal status, and a formal, somelike de facto appearance thing you want to be accepted as official and you want to hide all support of legal status! No way! If you have any good aim or good sense, in your conscience, show it! (KIENGIR (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC))

"So Poland would be also not independent of would manage her armed forces because their King is also the King of Hungary? Also Hungary was not independent in the 15th century because Sigismund of Luxemburg managed the army of the Holy Roman Empire?" It is interesting that the rage you display here is the same that Hungary provokes when denying, on very similar reasons to the ones you ridicule here - the de facto autonomy of Transylvania over most of the second millenium. So ridicule everywhere. PredaMi (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

We seem to have moved into the political monologue phase, which is rarely productive. Partly my fault perhaps for stirring things up. We need to keep to the point and be brief. Nigej (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Nigej, do not be surprised if something that should be understood is not understood or not acknowledged and we experience a heavy double-measure. Yes, the things were stired up thus no shorter explanation was possible, although it is the goal. If the article would have remained unchanged, not any discussion wuld occur.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC))

Text for the second paragraph of the history section

I would suggest the following text (with quoted) for the second paragraph of the history section: "In 1804 the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, who was also ruler of the lands of the Habsburg Monarchy, founded the Empire of Austria, in which all his lands were included. In doing so he created a formal overarching structure for the Habsburg Monarchy, which had functioned as a composite monarchy for about three hundred years. The workings of the overarching structure and the status of its component lands at first stayed much the same as they had been under the composite monarchy that existed before 1804. This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, a country which had always been considered a separate realm—a status that was affirmed by Article X, which was added to Hungary's constitution in 1790 during the phase of the composite monarchy and described the state as a Regnum Independens. Hungary's affairs remained administered by its own institutions (King and Diet) as they had been beforehand. Thus under the new arrangements no Imperial institutions were involved in its internal government." Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

References

1. The phrase "the status of its component lands at first stayed much the same as they had been under the composite monarchy that existed before 1804" is too ambigous. What does "at first " exactly mean?

2. "a country" from "the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, a country which had always been considered a separate realm" does not add any new information and I think it should be removed; "country" isn't more explanatory than "separate realm". I know, in the previous discussion I agreed with it, as a concession for a compromise, but now I am going to open a "request for comment" process if you keep your opinion on this. 123Steller (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Gerard von Hebel, I accept your proposal. If 123Steller is feeling better with this, ok let's spare now the word country this case, as a concession for compromise in return regarding the other page.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, thanks for the acceptance. Please also consider the case of the adverbial phrase "at first", I wonder if it is too vague. 123Steller (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

We could simply erase the word "country" from the text and replace "at first" with "until the 1848 revolution". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Or, much more easier, "The workings of the overarching structure and the status of its component lands HAD stayed much the same as they had been under the composite monarchy that existed before 1804."(KIENGIR (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC))

I agree with Gerard von Hebel 's version. I don't think KIENGIR 's last proposal is better. 123Steller (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Gerard von Hebel put then the version "-country" & "at first->"until the 1848 revolution".(KIENGIR (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC))

Done! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, than we resolved this issue also!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2016 (UTC))

User: Hebel deleted the reference sentence about the passport

Without any explanation http://epa.oszk.hu/00600/00691/00036/15.html The text clearly pointed out, that there were only two countries before the 19th century, where the passport was a necessity: Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The Austrians and Hungarians had separated passports when they traveled to Turkey and Russia.--Enginerfactories (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't delete the text, I moved it to another place. The article is about the compromise and the union that was the result of it. The passport reference was written in a section about the history BEFORE the compromise. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)