Wikipedia talk:Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Former discussion[edit]

I looked through the edits of the last days (since the 3 June) and they seem more or less OK to me. The article in all certainly needs gradual improvement but I didn't see anything horrible. The List of Transylvanians dispute is simply depressing but I get used to such kind of narrowness. If you think I can support you but I don't have new arguments after what you already said. Zello 16:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't Category:Hungarian people do it? kelenbp 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably we should try. Zello 20:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Francis II Rákóczi I don't really want an edit war, but it would be nice to reach a consensus about the usage of Hungarian historical geogr.names. (Juro already in action.) kelenbp 14:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Now it's really on....kelenbp 17:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Big sigh :( Zello 17:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a related problem: what should we do with the historical counties of Upper-Hungary? We can find them on the Slovak names: Tekov, Šariš, Spiš, Zvolen county, etc.. Is this OK? In my opinion we should use the Hungarian names. - Peppe83 08:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
...also, all the town names in them are Slovak... I noticed them already but didn't want to start a heated discussion, because this subject will inevitably lead to one. But if you start it, I think all of us here will support you. – Alensha  11:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope it will not cause conflicts, especially because all other county names (including those today in Austria, Serbia, or Romania) are in their original Hungarian form. See Category:Counties in the Kingdom of Hungary--KIDB 12:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
You are very optimistic.
What can we say when the two tipical Slovak arguments appears?
  • the Hungarian wasn't official language before the 19th century...
  • there was no significant Magyar population before ...
Which professional references can we use in this case? - Peppe83 12:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Slovakian wasn't an official language either. BTW I may be wrong on this, but I think the whole conception of official language arose only in the 19th century, before that, practically there were no official languages, only languages of administration (államigazgatás nyelve, I don't know the exact term in English).
It doesn't matter whether the majority of the population in these counties was Hungarian or not; they belonged to the Hungarian state, and this is what counts when deciding their name. If the majority of the population was the deciding factor, we could use the Hungarian names for all the modern-day towns/villages in Slovakia, Romania, Ukraine etc. which have a Hungarian majority, but this is clearly not the state in WP and all modern-day towns are mentioned by the names which is used for them in their country. – Alensha  13:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, but... Juro (and any Slovak editor) will typically argue that the official language (though the concept, being self-evident, was not defined back then) was Latin, and since it makes no sense to use Latin names in the en:wiki, let's use the names that were used by the majority of the local population - which, according to their belief, was Slovak. I've had a discussion with Juro somewhere where he said that the same principle should be applied to the comitatuses in other present-day countries, but he was not going to do that, since it's a lot of administration and he's receiving quite enough personal attacks from Hungarian editors anyway.
I think talking about "majority population" is tricky, since we have no reliable censuses from the most relevant time periods (in fact, none at all before the 18th century) and everyone has their preferred source (read: the source that seems to prove their POV) about "Who Was Here First", everyone's favourite stupid question all over Central Europe. So the official names would be best to use. If that means Latin, so be it. What do you think? KissL 14:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Using Latin names would mean that we'd have to use Latin names for the counties in present-day Hungary too, for the sake of consistency. It wouldn't look good. – Alensha  15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You are too optimistic. Juro will obviously NEVER accept Hungarian or Latin names, only the Slovak ones. I think every kind of compromise is impossible. But I hope I'm not right... Zello 15:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I also see the situation a little bit dark now. I hope, that by unity, we can still reach a compromise. User:Kelenbp 16:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a long dispute, I had some clash with Juro in this question more than a year ago and I didn't manage to convince him. This is the reason why I'm quite pessimistic.Zello 16:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a discussion with him about Kassa back in 2004 in the German Wikipedia and I partly gave up editing because of him...but there were no other Hungarians around then. (You can have a look: de:Diskussion:Košice (I signed my posts as Janos)). --User:Kelenbp 16:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me just point out that you what you have done in the German wikipedia is that you have moved the whole Košice article under the title "Kassa". So much for "intelligence" and non-chauvinism. Juro 00:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I managed to effectively work with Juro in cases when we reached a reasonable compromise (of course not easily). But the name issue is too fundamental for him. I think in the end German and Polish editors didn't agreed on the Danzig issue - they voted. But this is a dangerous precedent because we know that majority and truth is not always the same... Zello 17:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

All of the native English sources (books, maps) use the Hungarian names (or the Latin names, before the 19th-18th century, and sometimes Germans, for the towns), but no one use the Slovak names. This is the English Wikipedia, so we should follow the English standards :) For example, the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition don't mentioned the Slovak names [3]. - Peppe83 07:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Eleventh Edition was published in 1911 when the official language of the KoH was Magyar. De nem akarok ünneprontó lenni, csak pont ezzel nem nagyon érvelhetünk. Zello 12:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ezzel talán pont nem, de van olyan angol forrás, ami 1918 előtt szlovák neveket használ a KoH területén? A lenti linkek közül az első pont jó nekünk; a "Kassa" nevet használja Rethicus 1574-es halála kapcsán. Használhatta volna a latin, vagy német nevét is, de mégsem. Szerintem még sok ilyen akad, ugyanis angol nyelvterületen, ha nem akarnak vacakolni a latin és német nevekkel, akkor a magyart használják. Persze ezt alátámasztó források kellenek, de most nincs a közelemben egy angol nyelvű egyetemi könyvtár, de csak lehet találni egy Közép-Európa szakértő történészt aki megerősíti (vagy rosszabb esetben megcáfolja) ezt. - Peppe83 13:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ez igaz sajnos..I've found some recent example of using "Kassa" on English websites:

kelenbp 12:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To tell the truth I'd agree to use the Latin names before 1844, the Magyars between 1844-49, the German ones between 1849-1861 and again the Magyars between 1861-1920. But I don't see any willingness to the compromise so I stick firmly to the Hungarians. Zello 12:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree, I reached a similar (temporary) compromise with Pannonian (Talk:History_of_Vojvodina) and I have to mention that e.g. his Szabadka articel, except the usage of the Serb city-name, is quite OK. I agree however, that until Juro doesn't show any sign of being able to accept any compromise, we should stick to Hungarian names. However I still think, that Latin names were not more "official", than the Hungarian ones and the Slovak names of German-Hungarian cities were rarely used before 1920. I have a book right now in my hands, that was printed: "KASSÁN, 1831. Nyomtatta Werfer Károly Cs.Kir. priv. Akadémiai Typographus." (so before 1844)-- kelenbp 13:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We'd have to explain every time why are the names changing from Latin to Hungarian, then to German, etc. It's unlikely anyone will write an article that entirely takes place in the five-year-old period between 1844 and the end of the revolution. The name changes would need lots of explanation. – Alensha  13:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it needs too much explanation. In city articles every name is mentioned in the first paragraph so it's easy to identify them. In other cases one mention of the modern name in brackets is absolutely enough (or more brackets, I'm quite inclusionist in this case). This was really a multi-ethnic region so the English readers should notice that the we have three or four different city names not one as in Western Europe. Probably they will understand our history better. Zello 14:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We may ask them for what should we do: Hungarian Studies Association (HSA) - Peppe83 18:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea. Would you send them an email? Zello 19:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:The only problem, that I will go to holiday tomorrow, and I will not able to use internet for two weeks ... - Peppe83 19:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

OK,we can accept, the Latin names. I have to add however,that if there was no Latin name at all, then the Hungarian names were used, also in Latin texts: e.g. Rákóczi de Felsővadász, I saw the name Frakno (Fraknó) used on a Latin plate on the walls of the castle Fraknó (Forchtenstein). Munkács: I've found a Hungarian article about the city-seal (pecsét):


It's clear, that different versions of the Hungarian name was used. (The name of Munkács comes from the Hungarian anyway, and I think we shouldn't use Munkacz instead of Munkács in this case.) We should find, what exactly was written on the city-seal of Kassa in the 18th century.

An articel about the medieval Hungarian geographic names: (I really don't know...) kelenbp 18:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This [4] isn't a scientific article, but a joke: Árpád was the leader of the seven Hungarian branches that returned to Hungary in the 9th century. mindjárt jönnek a szíriusziak is? - Peppe83 19:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course the smaller towns and villages didn't have Latin names, so only the Hungarian ones are acceptable or other names if there wasn't any Hungarian name at all. I proposed Juro the Latin compromise on the Rákóczi page, and didn't revert his revert to show goodwill. Let's wait for his answer. Zello 21:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Juro agreed to accept the Latin names. Of course there are a lot of other naming problems as I wrote above but first of all I ask everybody: do you accept this kind of compromise for the bigger towns with Latin names ALL over the Kingdom of Hungary? Zello 21:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy when I see any kind of compromise. We'll see how it works. (Tell me if you need any help with the list.) kelenbp 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I proposed a list for the names in the Rákóczi article on that talk page. Zello 17:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly accept it (the more I think of it, the more I like it, in fact; it is just more encyclopedic). However, originally, I was thinking about the comitatuses, not the cities. Let's not forget that point. KissL 08:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know - today I think it will not work :) Zello 13:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

We'll see. For sure it's not easy :) KissL 13:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can see User: Gsandi didn't accepted the Latin names, he sticks to the Magyar ones. Of course I agree with his arguments - Latin was only the second option for the sake of compromise (and only a part of the problem will be solved with Latin, even the smaller part). I don't know, I like Kassovia but not very much Trentsinium :) Zello 14:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You can take a look at the Kuruc article where we have a new name debate. The case is absolutely clear from the data collected but no avail... 00:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Treaty of Trianon - again about numbers Juro claiming that Hungary committed ethhic cleansing against her minorities after 1920... Zello 19:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC) I looked up correct data, probably it will be OK now. Zello 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Kingdom of Hungary - History of Slovakia template inserted (deleted, inserted, deleted etc) by Greier. I don't think it a very good idea. Zello 21:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hungary - edit war with Greier, some help needed. Zello 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC) I see that it is part of a whole campaign to present Hungary as the agressor in WW1. Greier is working on articles Miklós Horthy and Hungarian Soviet Republic too. Zello 15:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Goulash Communism - nice little edit with a user who claims that 1956 Revolution shouldn't called so but only "events of 1956", and gulyáskommunizmus started immediately after 1956, not in the 1960's as my references prove. I will be happy to hear any opinion. At last something not about Magyar-Slovak-Romanian relations :))) Zello 01:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree:)) I think, we should mention the great amnesty for the 1956 prisoners in 1963 as well (It could be one other option regarding the start of the Goulash-Communism). kelenbp 08:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you copy this on the talk page of Goulash Communism? Or edit the article? (I have to respect the 3RR). Zello 11:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


The DYK section featured on the main page is always looking for interesting new and recently expanded stubs from different parts of the world. Please make a suggestion.--Peta 02:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Possible Hungary project[edit]

I've started a proposal for a WikiProject task force to deal specifically with articles relating to Hungary here. The advantages of such a setup are primarily related to the ability to add assessments and maybe a few other functions. Anyone interested in taking part should feel free to indicate as much there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

King of Croatia[edit]

Some time ago, one of the editors Toroko (who is Hungarian, I assume) started to delete any reference to Croatia in articles of the medieval Hungarian kings. Do we think that this is the proper approach? Do we need to open a new debate on issues which may not be so extremly important? What is the added value when deleting a reference to the fact that they were also kings of Croatia? I would be grateful if some of you could share his/her views with me on this subject. Borsoka (talk) 12:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a debate going on among historians over the true nature of Hungary-Croatia relations. See articles Pacta conventa (Croatia) and Croatia in personal union with Hungary and the many academic, English references listed for details. Squash Racket (talk) 14:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know that there is a debate on the subject. However, I still do not understand why the reference to the fact that they were also kings of Croatia should be deleted based on the debate. Please find below the message I sent to Toroko.
"Thank you for your note. I fully agree your approach that the Kingdom of Croatia was an integral part of the "Kingdom of Hungary" (that is it was one of the "Lands/Realms of the Holy Crown") - therefore the title "King of Hungary", after about 1096/1102, covers the title "King of Croatia". However, I think (based on the above arguments) that we should not defend the feelings of other editors who are convinced (and not without any basis) that they are citizens of a country (Croatia) whose history commenced more than 1,000 years ago and whose country had a special status within the "Kingdom of Hungary" even after it lost its full independence. Croatian people could claim that e.g., for them Béla II of Hungary is Béla I of Croatia. And I think their claim is valid and acceptable. The Croatian-Hungarian case may be similar to the case of the Crown of Aragon: this polity united the former Kingdom of Aragon and County of Barcelona, and later the joint rulers expanded their supremacy over the "Kingdom of Valencia" as well. Consequently, when medieval kings of Aragon are mentioned in Catalan scholarly works their numbering as counts of Barcelona is referred to, because for Catalan people it is important to underline that their history is continouos even if the County of Barcelona became an integral part of the "Kingdom of Aragon" (that is a member of the Crown of Aragon) after 1164 (as far as I can remember). We should respect other people's sensitiveness, because we also have our own feelings."

Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that, but by now we have come to the situation on Wikipedia that Croatia related articles, guarded by Croatian nationalists, claim that Croatia was a totally autonomous separate kingdom, and the only common between Hungary and Croatia was the person of the king. Further, they assert that Croatia and Hungary made up the Kingdom of Croatia-Hungary, with two equally autonomous kingdoms. I don`t even say that Croatia at that time wasn't the same as Croatia today, but there were 3 regions:Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia. Why isn`t it mentioned so often that the kings of Hungary were kings of Slavonia and Dalmatia, too? Because there are no Dalmatian or Slavonian nationalists on Wikipedia, just Croatians. Also, not long ago, I saw edits that claimed that actually Austria-Hungary, was Austria-Hungary-Croatia, Croatia having been the 3rd totally autonomous part.
Interestingly enough, edits that attempt to shed light and add extra information on the circumstances of Croatia's relation to her neighboring states, and which cite sources that confirm that territory that is now Croatia was in fact not so totally independent at all, periodically disappear for some mysterious reason...--Bizso (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If Croatia was divided this time (Dalmatia, Slavonia), it is also unencyclopedic.
Our "respect for sensitiveness" usually starts to become ridiculous when Wikipedia begins to look something else than other English, reliable sources. You should realize that the majority of sources covers them simply as Kings of Hungary.
I'm not generally against the idea. Probably reliable references should be added mentioning the given ruler as King of Croatia. Or a list of Croatian kings from a reliable English source. As you can see right now this issue leads to renewed edit warring, because there is a debate over the issue among historians too. Squash Racket (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So my understanding is that because some "Croatian nationalist" started to express their views on the autonomy of the medieval Croatia within the Lands of the Holy Crown, we started to delete all the references to Croatia in articles describing the life of medieval kings of Hungary (who were kings of Croatia, as well). Do we think that this is the proper approach? Borsoka (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
We can agree (or suggest) that only reliable sources written in English language can be used when editing Wikipedia. However, in this case, 70% of the text of the Hungarian-related articles should be deleted. I think this is not the best solution. Borsoka (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
proper approach is that we edit Wikipedia according to reliable and verifiable English sources and not according to our emotions, personal viewpoints or opinions.--Bizso (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
OK. Then let's begin to delete the 70% of the text of the articles describing the history of Hungary, because most of them is based on literature written only in Hungarian language. However, I fully agree that we should set aside our emotions when editing articles; therefore, I think that deleting any reference to Croatia in articles may be not the best way to convince third party readers that the edits of the "Croatian nationalists" are not fully in line with Wikipedia's policies. Borsoka (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you answered the IP, not my comment. I didn't start to delete anything.
English sources should be checked when it comes to controversial issues. Feel free to use any reliable sources when there's no dispute. Squash Racket (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Borsoka. The Hungarian kings were only "King of Hungary". They were no kings of Croatia. Whether you accept it or not. I gave English reliable, sources. Look, probably you are Slovak, so maybe you don't like Hungarians. I said earlier, i have no problem with you, and any other Slovaks. I don't want to argue with you. Even if you hate us, just because we are Hungarians. It was quite underhand that you peeped about me, whithout i knew it. But i don't care about it. I didn't delete any Croatian sources, i deleted only what was not true, so there is no problem. If you hate Hungarians, you can do, if you hate me, just do it, but he was only, the King of Hungary, there is no question about it, only in Croatia, and only in the mind of some Croatian, who can't bear what happened earlier, lots of hunderds of years ago. Nobody can change the history, because it has already happened. It is very ugly not to bear it and try to do something against it. This is my last sentence. Toroko (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Toroko, Croatia was an independent kingdom which had been established a century before Hungary, Poland, and Lithuania. Moreover, Croatia reserved some signs of self-government even following her union with Hungary. If we read the article Sigismund III Vasa we find that his title "Grand Duke of Lithuania" is mentioned even if at that time Lithuania existed only as a member of the Commonwealth. Similarly, the article Peter II of Aragon refers to his title "Count of Barcelona", although the County of Barcelona had already been incorporated into the Crown of Aragon. I think we should follow this example. I fully agree with your sentence that history already happened and it cannot be changed, however, and this statement might be a surprise for editors under 18, historical facts may be interpreted in different ways. Otherwise, I really enjoyed your other remarks (iuventus ventus) - please do not change yourself only if you have become convinced that it is necessary - I hope that I will manage to convice you that in this specific case you should change your attitude. Borsoka (talk) 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, would you stop arguing? Especially at this tone.. As far as I see

1) you are both pro-Hungarian (correct me if not), we all want to find out the truth, not do advertisment for ourself based on faked facts (like article Gr Moravia, Balaton principality of 2 years existence, detailed maps with invented provinces far in Bulgarian territories - if one des not read Byzantine sources /pity, today we have and info is cheap and wide/-, rule of Hapsburg mercenary Mihal Vitezezauluiu as princeps Transilvaniae of 2 years max in list of rulers...) 2) Croatia had never any significant Hungarian population (contrary to the Szeremseg e.g., which was before 1526 Hungarian majority), so probably all local function was done by Croats/Slavons, 3) there was until 1800 (see e.g. map of Karacs Ferenc: Horvatorszag & Totorszag (Slavonia) two separate entity) at least 3-4 parts Croatia/Slavonia/Dalmatia/Fiume+Istria with separate bans, so why handle it as would have been always one, 4) Hungarian kings (from late Arpadians-Angevins-Luxemburgs-early Hapsburgs had 8-10 titles Hungary/Cumania/Croatia /Dalmatia/Servia/Slavonia/Bulgaria/dux Salerno/... (see Anjou kori okmanytar 1-3x, Zsigmond kori okmanytar by Jako Zsigmond, etc) 5) early modern Croats, like Zrinyi/Zrinski Miklos, had many mothertongues /identity, as far as remember wrote more Hungarian (one of the most significant Hungarian writer in 17th century)although he was definitive Croat and he named himself Hungarian, his brother Petar/Peter famous maintener of the Croatian language (hero of today as tipical Croat) was executed in a Hungarian cause, father of Zrinyi Ilona, grandpa of Hungarian Rakoczi.. the matter is not that easy, that time coexistence was seen positive (like US today) and not negative (Transylvania/Slovaks today), so if someone felt both whom did he belong?

Please, take a breath, feel critical, but be not that rush to offend /especially if you are on the same side/..there is enough to check elsewhere--Vargatamas (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)--Vargatamas (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Whatever you do do NOT do things like this [5] it's just a bad idea to repeatedly revert a minor detail to the point of getting blocked in a minor article (I don't want to diminish the article but it has about 500 readers a month many of them the editors writing the article who get counted multiple times). I don't even understand what the debate was about between the two versions but I'm pretty sure it was not worth it. Please read the rules especially WP:3RR. I think the worst part of this is that Bizso wrote the report himself [6] that got him blocked. Just an example for everyone what not to do. Hobartimus (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Zara County stubs[edit]

Hi. Please can you expand the new stubs in Template:Zala. Thanks.Starzynka (talk) 10:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You are hereby redirected[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary. :-) You should ask your questions there. --grin 09:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Should diacritics be encouraged or discouraged in article's titles?[edit]

You may be interested in my proposal here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:40, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC notification[edit]

A new discussion on wording changes to the current guideline to clarify the use of diacritics for subjects whose native names contain them has been initiated. It can be found at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)/Diacritics RfC Ohconfucius ¡digame! 08:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)