This 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.
Hello! I read this article today, and in the following sentence I noticed a mistake:
"The uprisings lasted for years. After 8 years of war with the Habsburg Empire, the Hungarian Kuruc army lost the last main battle at Trencsén (1708)."
If I remember well, there was war for 8 years between 1703 and 1711. The war was going on for some years after the main rebel defeat. The surrender is what was "after 8 years", not that battle. Plus the irregular rebel forces tended to avoid open battles, so there weren't many "main battles" apart from this one.
I suggest the following:
"The uprisings lasted for years. The Hungarian Kuruc army, although took over most of the country, lost the main battle at Trencsén (1708). Thus, after 8 years of war, the Kuruc forces surrendered."
I don't want to edit this, until someone competent agrees to it. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I am sure that the phrase " tuition-free secondary education." in the 4th paragraph of the article's introduction is a mistake.
I suggest " free secondary education." instead.
Cpedw (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The article does not satisfy good article criteria, in particular WP:NPOV, due to WP:OWN and WP:BATTLEGROUND issues with some of the editors most active on the page, who pushed specific views of what should be allowed to be on the article against many contributions by others (example) and ignoring talk page discussion. Nemo 14:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The non-religious are treated as inferior by the Hungarian state, but Wikipedia is not the Hungarian state
The non-religious should appear higher, because they are more than other groups.
Christians have been analyzed into Catholics, Protestants; do the same with the "non-reigious" subcategories: atheists, agnostics, religiously indifferent and other (other is problematic, because some consider it a different category; some claim that are many sub-others which tendencies towards different specifics. Do the basics and debate for the minor issues.
If you're biased and you claim that religion is the hypernym of itself, and any other possible opinion is religion or religious; other options would falsely appear subhuman, simple due to bad labeling.
You cannot blame the Hungarian state, for the mistakes of presentation within Wikipedia. You should blame Wikipedia for the presentation. One can use the data, but Wikipedia doesn't belong to the Hungarian state; thus the order of the presentation and the titles, can be more respectful towards the human rights and the right to maintain a personal opinion on metaphysics which might be or not also a worldview (some people only focus on worldviews and not metaphysics; thus we need a wide hypernym; all hypernyms create non-somethings, nones, people who don't apply to the hypernym. A wisely selected hypernym, produces less nones. An atheist is a non / non-theist according to the survey hypernym "religion", but certainly not a non according to the survey hypernym "metaphysical worldview". A religiously indifferent might be again a non, or an other because he/she might self-ascribe to a rare or personal worldview.
Do your best. Christian biasing isn't your best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)