Talk:Hungarians in Slovakia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Slovakia (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Hungary (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Possible Bias?[edit]

This text is very biased by the magyar/hungarian point of view. The article is about "assimilation" of Hungarians by Slovaks, but only looks at the time between and after the WWs. On the other hand, Hungarians/Magyars tried to assimilate the Slovak (and other Slavic) nation since they came to Europe 1000 years ago. Before WW1, Slovaks were subject to magyarization - the process of converting Slovaks to Hungarians (often by violence). During WW2, Hungarians/Magyars occupied the southern parts of Slovakia and commited many crimes against Slovak people living there. After WW2, Czechoslovakia deported Magyars, who, in fact, were occupants of Slovakia/Czechoslovakia. It was a logical consequence of the occupation, but this article is written like the occupation never was.

The assimilation by Hungarians is treated on Magyarization. Nobody says that some Hungarians didn't commit any war crimes or didn't try to assimilate other peoples (you can't say actually that "Hungarians tried to assimilate the Slovak nation, that's reification, a fallacy). Furthermore, Hungarians are indigenous to (Southern) Slovakia, they have lived there since the Hungarian people moved to the Pannonian Basin in 896. And though I do not deny that the magyarization policies in the late 1800s were rather coercive, magyarization in the centuries before was merely voluntary, as the concept of nationalism was absent and language and religion were thus not seen in a nationalist context (language was only percieved as a means of communication, not as a means of national identification). If you really think that the deportation of Hungarians in Czechoslovakia afterw WWII was a good thing, it's time to put your blinders off. Maarten 14:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, my fault. "Magyars tired to assimilate the Slovak nation" -> "Magyar politics and aristocracy tried to erase the Slovak nation by assimilation". Is that OK for you? Magyarization before 1848 was not a problem. In fact, Slovaks tried to cooperate with Magyars, but were betrayed. Since then, Magyars (OK, OK, not all of them, just the important ones) systematically tried to damage the Slovak nation.
What I wanted to say is, that there were faults on both sides, but this article is written like "oh, the poor Magyars were hurt by the evil nationalistic Slovaks". The number of Slovaks oppressed by Magyars is much higher than the number of Magyars hurt/deported by (Czecho)Slovaks. But that is not important at this moment. All I want is unbiased information. This article is only one part of the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.189.4 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Magyar politics and aristocracy tried to erase the Slovak nation by assimilation" is also reification. Yes, there were faults on both sides, no one contends that, this is just not the article to describe magyarization. I also want unbiased information, and I provided some references to sustain some claims. Feel free to add some reliable sources to upgrade the quality of the article. Maarten (talk) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Would "Magyar ruling authorities tried to ..." sound better to you? You are catching me by words, but I am sure, you know what I mean.
This is not the article to describe magyarization, but magyarization should be a subsection of this article, especially in the "Origins of the Hungarian minority in Czechoslovakia" section.
I am not a historian and I have no time for becoming one. Moreover, my english is not so good and if I would add parts of the article, you and other people would catch me by words and the real meaning would be lost. All I could do is starting this discussion and label the article as inaccurate.147.175.98.213 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The talk of Hungarians trying to assimilate Slovaks since their arrival is pure garbage. Ethnic nationalism didn't come into any long term play until the 19th century. There were isolated, and generally short-lived episodes elsewhere, such as the Deluge in Poland, the Hussite Wars, the Hundred Years War and so fourth, however prior to that, the ruling groups, whomever they may be, sought to spread their language among their subjects. As such, there was never any attempt to 'erase' the Slovak population, or any other for that matter. Even after the Conquest of East Prussia by the Germans in 1300, the Prussian language survived until around 1700 when plague, not assimilation policies, wiped it out. The Czechs were ruled as a part of 'Germany' for roughly a millennium and none of their core territories were ever settled by any Germans to speak of--only the outer frontiers which early Czech kings invited Germans into to make the forests productive. One had natural assimilation and immigration from 800-1800 throughout Europe, only really after 1800 did one have true colonization and assimilation policies put into place based on nationalism and on absorbing minorities, however given the climate in Hungary, this really didn't start to take effect until after 1880 due to Hungary being broke until 1875 and having to cope with the Cholera epidemic of 1872-73. This followed the actions of the Germans/Prussians towards the Poles of 1832-1918 and the Russians towards their numerous minorities, but especially Poles from 1831-1918.
In most cases, peoples moved East. The French moved east at the expense of the Dutch and Germans (Calais having originally been a Dutch city up until the 9th or 10th century), the Germans moved east as the expense of the Poles (Poles calling in Germans to populate the dense forest regions of Silesia and Pomerania, where they intermarries with the Poles and absorbed them, much like the Czechs with regard to their border regions), the Poles moved east at the expense of the Ukrainians and Belorussians (Lwow-Tarnopol and Wilno-Grodno Poles), the Ukrainians and Belorussians moved east as the expense of the Russians and Tatars (Donetsk and Black Sea Coast regions including the Crimea having all been Tatar) while the Russians moved east at the expense of the Finnics, Tatars, Turkics and Volga Bulgarians (All of Siberia, most all of the Volga and Don Drainage Basins and the northern coast near Arkhangelsk).
The correct terminology would be to say that from 1880-1920 there was an attempt by the Hungarians to assimilate as many Slovaks, as well as Germans, Gypsies and Jews in Slovakia as possible, which ended in 1920 and in tern, Slovaks broke free of the Hungarian hold, but in tern would seek to absorb the Hungarian population due to the ill-drawn border, something that continues to this day, but the colonization factor is far more limited in Slovakia and Transcarpathia than in Transylvania and Vojvodina, where hundreds of thousands of Romanians and Serbs were brought from outside those regions and settled in cities to dilute the Hungarian population. Prussia1231 (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not catching you by words, maybe you should read the reification article. Reification is when you represent an abstraction as a concrete, real event or physical entity. I'm not nitpicking but I am saying this to you because a fallacy (Logický klam in Slovak) sounds like a good argument, but on closer examination it becomes clear that it is not an argument. That is what is so dangerous about fallacies (don't take this as an offence; I regularly make use of fallacies too by accident). The "magyar aristocracy" or the "magyar politicians" are an abstraction, they are not beings with desires. The magyar aristocracy cannot act like a human being, instead it is composed of individuals who may think in a same way, but who are responsible for their own actions. This may all sound like nitpicking, but it is the same as saying that "the Muslims attacked the World Trade Centre", at first this may seem a correct statement because the attackers were all muslims, but is is in fact a reification because "Muslims" is an abstraction and is not capable to "act" itself. Maarten (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This way, you would not be able to use plural at all. "Magyar aristocracy" is not an abstraction. It is a set of people. The statement "Magyar aristocracy tried to erase Slovak nation" means, that this group of people, the sum of individuals (or at least the majority of them), had the common intention to do it. Maybe in English the meaning is different, but in Slovak language, it has this meaning.
I will give you an example, don't take it as an offense, just as an example. Let's take your statement: "Muslims attacked the World Trade Centre". So how should we write it? For example: "The people who attacked WTC were Muslims"? But this would also be fallacy in your eyes, because there were several attacks. OK, so "The people who attacked WTC on 11.Sep.2001 were Muslims"? No, no, this is fallacy. There are more buildings with the name WTC. So "The people who attacked the WTC in NY on 11.Sep.2001 were Muslims"? No, no. Fallacy. There were several people, who attacked it only by words, saying something like "I don't like the WTC". So we could try "The people who attacked the WTC in NY on 11.Sep.2001 by hitting it by aircrafts were Muslims". Ad absurdum, I could continue for a long time.
What I want to say by this is, that you can sometimes use generalization and other language concepts without specifying all the details. Otherwise, you would not be able to say a simple statement like "The weather is beautiful", because it is a fallacy.
Are you aware, that the discussion about Magyar minority changed to discussion about language? That is exactly what I tried to avoid.147.175.98.213 (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can write "the people who attacked the WTC were Muslims", because you then acknowledge that individuals attacked the World Trade Center. These individuals were muslims. "Muslims" can't attack because "muslims" is not a being that can act. And yes, there were several attacks in the past on the (New York) World Trade Center, but referring to the attacks as the attacks on the WTC and referring to the New York WTC as "the WTC" is not a fallacy, it is "totum pro parte", a synecdoche (a figure of speech). It is totally unharmful as everybody knows that with the WTC (in this context) the WTC in New York is meant and with "the attacks" the attacks on Sept 11, 2001. A fallacy is not unharmful because, like I said earlier, a fallacy sounds like a good argument, but on closer examination it becomes clear that it is not an argument at all. Maarten (talk) 14:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

So you say, that "It is totally unharmful as everybody knows that ...". OK, when I wrote "Hungarians", you understood it as every single Hungarian? If yes, you could help me to reformulate it instead of just saying "no" to all my attempts. It would cost less time (for both of us) and would avoid emotions.
But this is really a language discussion and I am not sure, that it belongs here.147.175.98.213 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Link to Magyarization[edit]

Moved this discussion from my personal discussion page:

So far you really brought no arguments except "You cannot deny, that part of Hungarians in Slovakia are the result of magyarisation". Thats quite absurd given the long time passed since magyarisation but let's assume for a minute that you are right. Should we then add Slovakization to every possible article about Slovakia, Slovaks, Slovak language? as "You cannot deny, that part of Slovaks are the result of slovakization as they are Slovakized Germans, Rusyns, Hungarians, Jews and others". Can you deny that the percantage of Hungarians due to mass deportations, brutal oppression and rutheless slovakization went from 30% in 1910 to 10% today? I don't think that slovakization should be added to every article just because "some of the Slovaks are result of Slovakization" to use your words. Hobartimus (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

These numbers 30% to 10% are very misleading. I will quite from [1]: "Between 1850 and 1910 the ethnic Hungarian population increased by 106.7%, while the increase of other ethnic groups was far slower: Serbians and Croatians 38.2%, Romanians 31.4% and Slovaks 10.7%. Not because Slovaks had ten times less children (!!!), this is absolutely impossible, but due to strong Hungarization". There is no other explanation. And this is exactly the year 1910 that is mentioned in the main article, where this important fact was deleted. --Wikista (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This argument is substantial. Between 1880 and 1910, the number of Magyars in Slovakia was increased from 22% to 30%. And there was also some increase before. Look at the census data. This cannot be explained by natural migration or by population explosion. These number mean, that almost 1/3 of Magyars in Slovakia have slovak origin (and are the result of brutal oppression and ruthless magyarization).
One section of this article has the name "Origins of the Hungarian minority in Czechoslovakia". As 1/3 of Magyars are the result of magyarization, it is relevant to add the reference to magyarization. Or do you think, that the history of Slovakia begins in 1918?
147.175.98.213 (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
So you mean it increased from 22% to 30%, but you forget to write how much is it today? It's 10% as a result of brutal oppression and ruthless slovakization, therefore Slovaks are a result of slovakization as you put it so you should put links to all the articles about slovaks to Slovakization. I will check you if you placed those links first then we will allow the link here. Just look at the numbers from 30% to 10% is extremely brutal sharp decline its 1/3 of the original percentage. Slovaks were 9% of the population in Hungary, they were 15% in Czechoslovakia, just imagine for a second if the same would have happened to them it would be 3% and 5% respectively, which is not enough for much in any country. Now you can see how brutal that decline in percentage really is. Hobartimus (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to add the reference to slovakization into every article speaking about "origin of Slovaks". I am not going to do it instead of you.
The "they were 15% in Czechoslovakia" is not true. Where did you find this number?
You argue that "slovakization was brutal" etc... But that is irrelevant (btw. also POV) for the discussion about magyarization. The fact (from a census made and accepted by Magyars) is, that 1/3 of Magyars in Slovakia are of slovak origin as the result of magyarization. Or do you want to deny this?
An article speaking about "Origins of the Hungarian minority in Czechoslovakia" should contain the reference to magyarization.147.175.98.213 (talk) 22:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is irrelevant (I wonder what you would call 30%->10% decline to 1/3th) but it was you who started arguments about percentages saying 22->30, but not mentioning how much is it today. I found the 15% in a Wikipedia article I think but I wrote it from memory so I could be 1 or 2 percent off, but I know that Germans were the 2nd biggest nation in Czechoslovakia after Czechs, and Slovaks the 3rd largest group had no autonomy at all (all of this in the early days of CZ). Hobartimus (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I used percentages for a good reason. It is about the origins of Magyars in Slovakia.
Please reconsider. If your version (your last edit) were to be accepted it would be possible to write sentences like this, "out of 5,5 million people living in slovakia 4,6 million of them are slovaks (altough large percentage of them are the result of Slovakization)". Do you see how these types of sentences can be considered offensive? Hobartimus (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's offensive. In fact, it's just plain nationalist rhetoric. And it is irrelevant in this discussion. As if a Slovak Hungarian who has ethnic Slovak ancestors 100 or 500 years ago is less Hungarian than "100% pure" ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia or Hungary. I find such an assumption sickening, it reminds me of blood and soil nationalism that I thought had been abandoned by all people suited with some brains and reason. Maarten (talk) 14:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You should not separate this. It is not "100 or 500 years ago". The article starts with year 1919, which is the date, when the main wave of magyarization ended. It is not about "100 years ago", it is about "yesterday". The main wave of magyarization is dated between 1848 and 1918.
The article writes "the territory included a sizable German and Hungarian population as well". These people lived during magyarization and germanization, they remembered it and were affected by it.
So I can change what You wrote into: 'As if a Slovak Hungarian who has ethnic Slovak ancestors 5 years ago is less Hungarian than "100% pure" ethnic Hungarians in Slovakia or Hungary.'
147.175.98.213 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
In the article about United States, you can find a sentence: "In 2005, the U.S. population included an estimated 4.5 million people with some Native American or Alaskan native ancestry." Do you also think, that it is offensive and nationalistic rhetoric? How does it differ from "In 1918, the Hungarian population included people with Slovak ancestry", except that there is no exact number?
147.175.98.213 (talk) 19:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that no government should ever try to impose an ethnic identity on people by force, so I disagree with both magyarization and slovakization. Furthermore, people that were direct victims of magyarization could easily "change" their ethnicity after 1918; people who felt uncomfortable with their Hungarian identity and rather declared themselves Slovak, or German, or Czech were no longer restricted to do so. But there are a lot of magyarized families that identified themselves as Hungarians and felt Hungarians. Even if your father himself was a magyarized Slovak and you were the first generation of the family to be brought up in Hungarian, why should you be forced to "Slovakize" after that. You may find it sad that magyarization happened, but that doesn't mean that you should impose a Slovak national identity on a person -- whose family is magyarized -- that really identifies with Hungary. My problem was with the word "although", because that sort of implies that magyarized people have less reason to identify themselves with the Hungarian language, Hungarians and Hungary. Maarten (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with you in this.
Just to explain. One of reasons to use this formulation was, that in the 1910 census (and also in "normal" life), many Slovaks said, that they have Hungarian nationality, just because they feared, that they will be persecuted if they don't. Therefore, at the end of WWI, many people with the official Hungarian nationality were Slovaks.
You say, that people could easily change their nationality. In fact, that is exactly what they did and this article calls it "slovakization" (to be exact, it is part of slovakization). Therefore, the percentage of Magyars in Slovakia after WWI decreased drastically. There are probably other reasons too, but this is one of them. And this is basically why I tried to add the link to magyarization.
By occupation (written on your talk page), I mean the occupation during WWII above all (see Slovak-Hungarian War), not only the dissolution of Great Moravia.
I disagree with magyarization, slovakization and other "-izations". Maybe I look like a big nationalist to you, but I am not. And by this, I would like to apology to everyone, I might offend. I didn't mean to.
147.175.98.213 (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian government link[edit]

Every year, the Hungarian government provides a status report on Hungarians living outside of Hungary, and includes some historical basis. It would be an excellent reference for this article, and for other articles on Hungarian minorities. I read the year-2004 version that was available in 2005 (English translation), and noted that there were documents for other years. I assume that there are now more current versions.

I lost the link, and came here hoping to find it, without success. Searching the Hungarian government's website would not be easy for one who doesn't speak the language, so I'm hoping that someone more capable than myself will take the initiative to look it up (and will be able to use it as a reference in the main article). I can then come to the main article and find the link.

Some additional information: it discusses the Hungarian minorities in states bordering Hungary in separate documents, and then has another separate document that covers all others (in the US, Canada, etc). It is written diplomatically (the initial paragraphs of each page are a bit tedious for that reason, I think), it leaves no question as to the views of the Hungarian government, and I think it is perhaps the best presentation of information that I've seen in regard to this emotional issue.

Regards, 24.178.228.14 (talk) 05:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You are probably looking for this website. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 21:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Gerrymandering[edit]

I removed the "gerrymandering" part. It claims, that there were 2 regions (of 17 total) with hungarian majority before 1996 and none after. This is, however, nonsense, as there were no regions recognised before 1996. Last time, when Slovakia had 17 regions, was in the 13th century. See http://www.infostat.sk/vdc/pdf/slavikdoc.pdf - for people who don't speak slovak, it is the table 1 (tabulka 1), the slovak word for "region" is "kraj", plural "kraje", table columns macro-regions ("makroregiony") and mezo-regions ("mezoregiony")

The claim was challenged since august 2008 and nobody backed it up with a reference since then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.175.158.196 (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

I am shocked after reading this article. Not only has this article - obviously - not been edited by any local Slovak or Hungarian having the slightest idea of the topic, but also it would be considered an article written by (at best) the Jobbik in Hungary. Even if I close all my eyes, I can only recommend everybody not to believe any single word of the text. Thank you. Szabó2 (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I am shocked too. Not only has this article - obviously - edited by experts of this issue, but it is obviously totally underpinned by data. I can only recommend everybody TO BELIEVE every single word of the text. In Europe, everybody, I repeat EVERYBODY commited crimes, motivated by nationalism. There was no difference between good and bad nationalism. It's high time, that finally everyone, even Slovakia faced the darker side of its past. The capability of admitting that we were wrong - that's a sign of the adulthood. See also magyarization! Thank You!--Ltbuni (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Objectivity concerns[edit]

I express serious concerns about objectivity of this article. According to my knowledge it contains false arguments and misinterpretations. I request flagging this article as an article with disputed objectivity. --Eminencia (talk) 11:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"It contains false info" Where? Any arguments? --Ltbuni (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Efffect of Slovak language laws on billingualism[edit]

The articles presents as fact that most Hungarians in Slovakia are bilingual with Slovak because of Slovak language laws (I'm not sure if the person writing this therefore resents the laws or thinks they are good for that reason).

I suspect the language laws are not the prime reason for bilingualism, merely that if someone wants success in careers, a full-choice of serivces (including privately supplied ones), and to be able to follow the politics of the state they live in then they want to learn the state language.

I'm going to take it out in the future, so if anyone wants to keep it, it would be useful to post in this discussion a comparison with other minorities of around 10 percent in relatively small countries, but without the language laws, or to compare the situation now with the situation before the language laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.211 (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to object[edit]

This article has been written from a very close-minded point of view. Quite obviously, the author has no idea about the situation and/or is intentionally trying to promote misinformation, fallacy and demagogy. I absolutely agree with opinion above (Eminencia). This article should be flagged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.131.140 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC) This article has NOT been written from a very close-minded point of view. Quite obviously, the author has insight into the situation and is intentionally trying to promote facing this hot issue.. I absolutely agree with opinion above (Ltbuni). This article needs to be read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ltbuni (talkcontribs) 15:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Unsourced Material[edit]

No one has added any source for the material below that has been included in this article. It has been like that for over five months. Why should it be left in there if no one has been able to produce any proof at all? It should remain removed from the article until a reliable source is found. Five months has been long enough to wait for someone to add a source. I have a feeling Hungarian nationalists won't like this but that material should not be in the article.

This is the material that has been unsourced for over five months:

>Slovaks leaving Hungary moved voluntarily, but Czechoslovakia forced Hungarians out of their nation[citation needed].

>After expulsion of the Germans, Czechoslovakia found it had a labor shortage, especially of farmers in the Sudetenland. As a result, the Czechoslovak government deported more than 44,129 Hungarians from Slovakia to the Sudetenland between 1945 and 1947[citation needed]. Some 2,489 were resettled voluntarily and received houses, good pay and citizenship in return. Later on, from November 19, 1946 to September 30, 1946, the government resettled the remaining 41,666 by force, with the Police and Army transporting them like "livestock" in rail cars[citation needed]. The Hungarians were required to work as indentured laborers, often offered in village markets to the new Czech settlers of the Sudetenland. 24.144.148.37 (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Slovak Census data for 1930 appears skewed[edit]

After looking over the 1920/21 and 1930/31 census data for the other areas of concentrated Hungarian minorities outside of Hungary--the census data of Hungarians in Transylvania in Romania, in Vojvodina in Serbia, and in Transcarpathia, Czechoslovakia, the number of Hungarians in Slovakia as of 1930 seems skewed, given their number as of 1921.

In Vojvodina, the Hungarian population increased from 363,450 in 1921 to 376,176 in 1931 or by 3.50% In Transylvania, the Hungarian population increased from 1,305,753 in 1920 to 1,349,563 in 1930 or an increase of 3.36%. And in Transcarpathia, the Hungarian population increased from 111,052 in 1921 to 116,548 in 1930 or by 4.95%. In Slovakia by contrast, the Hungarian population decreased from 650,597 in 1921 to 585,434 in 1930, a decrease of 10.02%. Three of the four above regions seem to show a growth rate of the Hungarian population at about 3.5% between 1921-1931 (or 3.15% for 1921-1930). Based on that, one would have expected around 670,000 Hungarians in Slovakia in 1930, over 85,000 more than were recorded. Even in Romania where in 1920 the Gypsies were not counted separately but were in 1930, numbering 108,143, there was an increase of self identified Hungarians by 3.36% despite the losses of Gypsies who labeled themselves Hungarians in 1920.

Now according to Hungarian sources, 197,000 Hungarians fled Romania between 1918-1924, 88,000 fled Slovakia, 45,000 fled Vojvodina and 19,000 fled Transcarpathia. The flight number, derived by adding the 1920/21 population with the flight totals and dividing by the flight totals shows that 13.12% of the roughly 1,503,000 Hungarians (as of 1918) fled Transylvania in Romania, 11.91% of the 739,000 Hungarians fled Slovakia, 11.02% of the 408,000 Hungarians fled Vojvodina and 14.61% of the 130,000 Hungarians fled Transcarpathia, putting Slovakia in the middle of the bunch. This shows that there wasn't anything unique about the situation of Slovakia or the Hungarians in Slovakia. Furthermore, there is no mention about any additional flight between 1924 and 1930 with regard to Slovakia (though there is with regard to Romania), making the numeric reduction of the 1930 census appear all the more unlikely to be legitimate.

Source:

As a result, I think that the 1930 Czechoslovak census data regarding the Hungarian minority in Slovakia be labeled as skewed as the 1910 and 1941 Hungarian census, as the numbers just don't add up. In all the other regions in question, people who had been forced to declare their mother tongue as Hungarian in 1910 were free to declare their true one in 1920/21 and 1930/31, while the Jewish population was put into a separate group for the first time since 1857, both resulting an a drop in the number of 'Hungarians' between 1910 and 1920/21 but not the kind of continuing drop seen in Slovakia between 1921 and 1930. Prussia1231 (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting calculations and it might indeed be the case that these censuses were skewed. However, Wikipedia is no place for original research. The question is whether you can come up with reliable sources that claim some kind of manipulations. If there are no sources, then these should not be mentioned, even if your theory sounds plausible. And it is also controversial whether the 1910 census was skewed and people were "forced" to declare their mother tongue Hungarian. I understand that some nationalists want to use such claims to support that the borders set by the Treaty of Trianon were fair. Nevertheless, the main point is that only sourced claims should be presented and if some events are interpreted differently by diverse scholarly books / scientific articles, then all major (sourced) viewpoints should be represented in the article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There lies the problem, in that there are hints of falsification everywhere but nothing that says what the actual number of Hungarians was. According to the same Hungarian source I used in my first post:
"By the census 1930 the number and percentage of Hungarians significantly decreased by 300,000 or 12.6 % comparing with census data 1910 (Tab. 7, Fig. 10). All this mainly was due to the statistical assimilation of those with uncertain ethnic identity and those with two or three ethnic affiliations, the partial assimilation of the former voluntarily "Magyarized" urban inhabitants of Jewish and German ethnic origin into the new state-forming ethnic group of "Czechoslovaks", as well as statistical manipulations, pressure on the Hungarians at the time of the census, separation of around 47,000 Hungarians into the "foreigner" statistical cathegory (Popély Gy. 1991)."
The problems with that source, however is that it is Hungarian and downplays the effects of Magyarization on Slovaks, suggesting that most Slovaks who were Magyarized were ethnically mixed, and that the majority of the Magyarized population was made up of Germans, Jews and Gypsies. However it does give a minimum figure of 47,000 'hidden' Hungarians (and the linked demographic data shows the number of 'Others' jump from 48,143 in 1921 to 72,666 in 1930) and suggests manipulation through number fudging and intimidation.
There are less obvious hints from the Slovakization page. Under the Forced Deportation of the Hungarians section of that page, one has the following statement:
"The resettlement of about 700,000 Hungarians was envisaged at Kosice and subsequently reaffirmed by the National Front."'
Also, under the "re-Slovakization" section, 3 sources are used to write:
"Therefore the number of Hungarians in Slovakia dropped to 350000.[41] According to Russian archives, 20000 Hungarians declared themselves as Slovak at the beginning of the year 1949, and eventually 360000 Hungarians changed their ethnicity to Slovak, according to Slovak historians.[57] The fear was so big among the Hungarian population, that only 350000-367000[58] claimed themselves Hungarian in the 1950 census."
Now those sources/statements suggest that there were 700,000-727,000 Hungarians in Slovakia between 1943-1950, prior to the deportation of 90,000 Hungarians. (Transcarpathia is not mentioned in either above listed statement and was Soviet by the time of the 1950 census.) If the figure of Hungarians in Slovakia in 1930 was truly 585,434, it would have required a population growth rate of 21.28%-24.18% over only 13 years to reach 700,000/727,000, where if it were 670,000, those rates would be 6.0% and 8.5% respectively. Prussia1231 (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of Article[edit]

This article picks up in 1918, with the independence of the first Czechoslovak Republic. Is there another article covering the history of Hungarians in Slovakia prior to 1918? If so, it needs to be made more clear in this article that this is the case. Personally, I think some summary of that is necessary in this article, else this article needs to be retitled to make it more clear that the subject is Hungarians in the modern, independent nation of Slovakia. Otherwise, the uninformed reader is left wondering "Why are/were there so many Hungarians in Slovakia?"

I visited Bratislava and other areas of Central Europe recently, so I've acquired a renewed interest in Central European history. I'd be willing to help revise this article, but I wanted to get consensus on the talk page first before doing any major re-writes. If no one objects, I'll add a few summary paragraphs in a new section soon. My next project will be to make sure that this article is and remains free from nationalist POV on both sides. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 12:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Prior to WW1 the territory of the modern Slovak republic belonged to Hungary. I've added a sentence to the history section. - filelakeshoe 12:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Subjective opinions on Eszterházy[edit]

With all due respect to the one who edited that part of the article, Eszterházy should not be called a martyr. That is a wholly subjective statement. If you want to note that he was an interwar and WWII politician who led the political movement of the Hungarian minority in then Czechoslovakia, that's fine. Noting that he remains controversial, with the various sides of the debate viewing him differently, is also fine. However, don't call him a martyr. By that logic, even political/historical figures who no one traditionally views in such a way can be considered a martyr if just one person holds such an opinion and forces it into Wikipedia. Writing about someone being a "political martyr" is not encyclopedic. --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 12:59, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Edits[edit]

Recently started an edit-war, my argument is that should be updated with the latest data or move it to the history part.2QW4 (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the Talk page. Please, see my answer below. Bye, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Manipulation of data[edit]

This data below are no longer valid in 2013 when there is a new census data from 2011. Why to use this in the front lead? It's misleading. Do you agree with me?. 2QW4 (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hungarians in Slovakia (census 2001)
  50-100%
  10-50%
  0-10%
I do not see any "manipulation" here, as the date (2001) is clearly shown by the caption of the map. On the other hand, by all means, please go ahead and design a new map showing the results of the 2011 census. The data the current map is based on is only a decade old, it shows the general distribution of Hungarians in Slovakia. Thus, having this map is much better than having no map at all. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I know very well your arguments. Using an old census data you make manipulation. People are then not well informed by the latest data, people may think there are more Hungarians then there are in reality. I know your approach. You will never do an updated map. 2QW4 (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What kind of manipulation? Stop moaning and design a new map with the latest data. But stop deleting a quite informative map until you come up with a better one.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear 2QW4, please, assume good faith. As Fakirbakir has also pointed out, you don't have to wait until somebody else prepares such a map. You are welcome to do it yourself. However, until you make a better map, please, leave this one where it is, as it gives a general illustrative overview, even if it is not based on the last census. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
You didn't reply why you don't want to make it...2QW4 (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not the one who has serious issues with this one... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Perfect. I will do it and then you will no longer have any issue..2QW4 (talk) 20:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
So, who wants to help also? 2QW4 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Beneš decrees vs. SMK[edit]

On 27 September 2007, the Slovak parliament reconfirmed the Beneš decrees, appearing to legitimize the historic accusation of collective guilt and deportation of Hungarians and Germans from Czechoslovakia after World War II.

The text of the resolution [2] (official web site of the parliament). For those who cannot speak Slovak, translation of the first point:

  • SK: "nezabúdajúc na utrpenie obetí II. svetovej vojny, odsudzujúc princíp kolektívnej viny"
  • EN: "reminding suffering of victims of World War II, rejecting principle of collective guilt".

It seems that somebody took information from website of active political party (Party of Hungarian Coalition, SMK) and did not verify basic facts.--Ditinili (talk) 12:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The original source used is not available but I wouldn't be surprised if it was POV, the wording "appearing to legitimise" stinks of original research anyway. I would go ahead and edit the sentence. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

mass deletion by user EllsworthSK[edit]

Dear EllsworthSK, Could you explain me the problem? Why do you delete sourced text without any discussion at talk page? Fakirbakir (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The issue was clearly explained in revert note. Let me copy it here: unsoruced, redundant. Sections talks about current status, not status under Mečiar or 1st Fico gov, which are unsoruced as well.
Moreover, for the future reference - keep things like what is wrong with you? for yourself next time. Thanks. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Incompetent changes and usage of POV[edit]

I am concerned with recent unfounded reverts and usage of POV templates. I would like to prevent situations when somebody inserts templates and reverts changes with such arguments like "publication of Hungarian author is Slovak POV", or "whatever I dislike is Slovak POV" or "internationally accepted facts about policy of Horthy Hungary are POV" or "something was published by Matica slovenská so nationality of author is put into doubts with smile and whole sentence is POV", etc. Further, trials for communication through reverts and comments instead of raising issue and discussion on the talk page. Unacceptable.--Ditinili (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You are just trying to push the Slovak POV. Your editing lacks of neutrality. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
In any case, you need sources to support your opinion and some of your comments are inappropriate and behavior unacceptable. I am open for discussion about any issue. However, raising POVs for scholarly peer reviewed collective works because "Fakirbakir" has different opinion is bad strategy.--Ditinili (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
If you are an expert, why did not you mention that in Fiľakovo the shops had run out of Hungarian flags before the "return". Or, you should also mention that the residents of Kosice secretly purchased Hungarian flags in the shops (only if they knew a password). There had been rallies everywhere in southern Czechoslovakia since 3 of October where the demonstrators sang the Hungarian anthem and wore cockade. The Hlinka guard attacked Hungarian students in Bratislava because they wore Bocskay shawl. The Czechoslovak gendarmerie fired at the people Ožďany because they dared to sing the Hungarian anthem (Balint Varga was deadly wounded) etc. etc. etc.... Mitac's sentence "Overall mood can be characterized..." is highly biased or at least subjective. Do not tell me that Hungarians wanted Czechoslovak authority back. It would be a huge lie.....Fakirbakir (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no doubts that Hungarian population welcomed the annexation, it is not under dispute. It is already covered by the first sentence of the section about annexation. It is not even disputed among historians. If you believe that some important incident is missing, feel free to describe it. In any case, it is not the reason for non-constructive behavior like adding random POV templates for other well sourced information. We will have more about Hlinka Guard and Hungarians later when we come to post-Munich Czechoslovakia and the Slovak state (The First Slovak Republic).
Regarding to watchwords like "Minden drága, vissza Prága!", it seems that you are not able to follow timeline. This change in overall mood came later as a result of bad Hungarian economic and social policy. It is not in conflict with information about initial euphoria, but both information are valid. It is not difficult to understand that people become dissatisfied, because they had to exchange money in disadvantageous rate and lost part of their savings, their salaries were decreased, prices increased, unemployment increased, they lost many social benefits provided by Czechoslovakia, etc. Especially, if pre-war Hungarian propaganda promised something completely different. Your theories about "what would be possible" and "what would be a huge lie" are your personal opinions, absolutely irrelevant and incompetent and in any case, they cannot be used as a reason for playing with POV templates after fully sourced text. On the Czechoslovak side, idea of collective responsibility or collective guilt of Hungarians also envolved in time and everything must be viewed in respect to concrete time.--Ditinili (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarians in Slovakia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hungarians in Slovakia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hungarians in Slovakia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hungarians in Slovakia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)