Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:22, 3 December 2006

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

Horthy and the Hungarian Holocaust

On the the subject of the responsibility of the Horthy Regime for the events of the Hungarian Holocaust, there is an unpublished article on the topic posted at mypage.iu.edu/~jschelbl/responsibility/ (no http:// or www) titled:

"Responsibility and Accepting Responsibility: a Moral Assessment of the Relative Volition of Hungarian Domestic and Foreign Policy from Trianon to the Siege of Budapest 1919-1944."

In it sources are cited detailing the relative degrees of responsibility of the German, Hungarian, British and US governments for the Hungarian Holocaust which would be very relevant to the Misplaced Pages article on Hungary. 156.56.142.82 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Culture Section

Added culture section. Any improvements welcome. --Charm Quark 13:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you please add something about pianist Gyorgy Sandor?

Wiki's link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Gy%C3%B6rgy_S%C3%A1ndor

He was my great Uncle, and in my (somewhat biased) opinion one of Hungary's greatest cultural contributors.

Equally worthy of mention are his mentor, Bela Bartok:

http://en.wikipedia.org/B%C3%A9la_Bart%C3%B3k

And Zoltan Kodaly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Zolt%C3%A1n_Kod%C3%A1ly

Thank you!

The Hungarian Economy

The economy section should be updated, in the light of the latest data: Hungary has the third biggest budget deficit compared to GDP in the whole world. Hungary had its foreign debts reclassified to a BBB+ (?) rating. Most foreign and domestic economist agree that substantial changes are needed in the way the government is managing the budget. The political sphere is ackowledging the problems: the government is preparing for a "reform" which the opposition (and most everyone else) is calling stringency. Most serious analysts also agree that the government claims of 2010 for Euro adoption are highly unrealistic and the most optimistic ones put the date to 2012-2013.

So this statement: "Hungarian sovereign debt was upgraded in 2000 to the second-highest rating among all the Central European transition economies." needs updating. "Inflation and unemployment – both priority concerns in 2001 – have declined substantially." - It seems that unemployment was on the rise in the last few years aswell, so this isn't a correct statement. A beautiful mind 14:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything is correct you wrote. Zello 17:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

New Edit

I've put a bunch of new photos on the page, please don't delete them. If you want to discuss the changes please contact me domevereczkey@yahoo.co.uk

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.67.6 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed most of them. I'm fine with a few good photos, even with a gallery at the bottom if it is nicely put together, but I couldn't disregard the following problems:

• Many of the images were not related to the section they were added to, or sometimes even the whole article.
• They were placed in a way that the article became totally cluttered (maybe not with your browser + your skin + your screen resolution, but quite so with mine).
• I hadn't noticed that, but it turns out there were also copyright problems (see recent edits by OrphanBot).

So please make sure what you're uploading is available under the appropriate licences and properly tagged; then place them in the article if they are relevant to the section in question and properly formatted (this one needs careful attention, especially when there are many images).

KissL 09:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian-Romanian war

There is no need to present the events of that war in such detail when there are an independent article about the History of Hungary, the Hungarian Soviet Repbulic etc. Other historical events are much more simplified in this article. Although the article shouldn't present such a misleading picture that Hungary was the agressor in this war. In the whole course of war Romania was the attacking party and before the events of July Romania wasn't willing to give back the Tiszántúl against the decree of the Peace Conference. Zello 14:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

False. The reason for the details are due to your attmept to present Romania as the agresor part. 14:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greier (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that Romania was the agressor part continously from 1916. Obviously Romanians tried to get Hungarian territories not the opposite way. Zello 14:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

There was a war, called WW2, which Hungary lost and Romania won. Hungary didn`t agree, and hence the war broke out. Romania had no reasons to start the war when it was the winner. Simple logic. 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greier (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Romania didn't win WW1 - Romania was the ally of Austria-Hungary, betrayed the allience to get Transylvania, attacked Hungary, lost and signed the peace treaty. After Austria-Hungary collapsed Romania attacked again. That happened in 1918-19. July 20 was only a failed counter-attack by Hungarians, not the start of the war. Zello 15:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The Crown Council from 1914 decided neutrality in war (due to the two antagonizing factions, sympathisising the Triple Alliance and the Entente), therefore technically Romania was not an ally of the Central Powers. However, after other discussions and agreements with the Entente powers during 1914-1916, Romania entered the war on the Entente's side in 1916 to gain the territorise with ethnic Romanian majority outside its borders. So I don't think the term "aggressor" is right, unless you decided that WWI was started by Entente.

Romania adhered to the Triple Alliance in 1883. --fz22 11:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The bounds between Romania and the Triple Alliance members were given by a casus foederis. The Crown Council decided that the confict between Serbia and Austro-Hungary was not in within the boundaries of the casus foederis and decided neutrality (a decision accepted by Vienna and Berlin). Italy proceeded in a similar way. It was against the treaty to attack Austro-Hungary (Romania never declared war to Germany), but Romania and the Central Powers were not allied in WW1, and this was my objection/clarification to Zello's paragraph. Daizus 12:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, on the field in 1917 Romania was victorious, the peace of Buftea and then Bucharest (1918) was signed mostly because of the Russian Revolution (1917) and the conflicts from Bessarabia. The unions during 1918 are caused by internal movements in those territories and not under a military occupation. Daizus 09:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hiding" in comments...

Re - I have hidden that sentence with a HTML comment because it's a mess. Hungary did one thing on April 15, another on July 20 - what? And, otherwise, even if it is clarified in the future, I think it just not something people will want to know when reading about Hungary in general. If we put these kind of details everywhere, the History section would make up 95% of the article (as I also made this clear in edit comments before). Would someone who agrees just remove that sentence, I don't want an edit war over such a ridiculous issue. KissL 22:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That section was inserted by User: Eliade who proved to be a sockpuppet of the permanently banned user, Bonaparte. I wrote a shorter version. Zello 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! KissL 09:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Population issues

What credible sources do you have in order to see the estimations of population of Hungary for 2006? Please don't blindly revert.--Noisettes 14:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The source is theHungarian Central Statistics Office. Census authority estimates have priority over other sources. --Polaron | Talk 14:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I had to semi-protect the article as the anonymous IP repeatedly change the numbers to the lower value. As if it's really such important to claim that there are less than 10 million hungarians. If the official census says it's more than we should believe them. andy 12:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Henryk Sławik

Henryk Sławik also helped Hungarian Jews and died. Doesn't he deserve to be mentioned here? What about Hungarian protestants, not mentioned here? Xx236 07:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of Hungarians didn't lift one finger to help Jews. This is in stark contrast to some other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgrade Glendenning (talk • contribs) 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Self-drawn flags

I removed historical hungarian flags whose images were drawn by a wikipedian without explanation of their origin. I posted the request in User talk:Noisettes, but it is ignored:

"Sorry, I had to remove images of flags from Hungary article. Please provide the source of the design. As with any other information in wikipedia, the main rule is wikipedia:Verifiability. I am not saying that your drawings are wrong or useless, but flag is a serious thing and requires verification."

`'mikka (t) 22:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

See User:Noisettes why your note is, and will continue to be, unanswered: that account is a sock of a permabanned user :) KissL 20:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

False external links

The link to Chronological Survey: 2500 BC - 2004 AD seems to have been hijacked. I cannot find the original (presumably correct) link. The following is the current, false link:

http: //cityguide.budapestrooms.com/hungary/history1.htm History of Hungary – Chronological Survey: 2500 BC – AD 2004

Bardwell 10:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That link worked fine for me, but I removed it anyway, since it seemed to be commercial and at the same time offered very little information. Feel free to remove things like that yourself next time - it's a wiki after all :) KissL 14:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

2006 Protests -- Those Behind the Recent Problems in Hungary

"The troblemakers in Hungary are the Jews...they demoralize our country and they are the leaders of the revolutionary gang that is torturing Hungary." -- CARDINAL MINDSZENTY of Hungary, quoted in the B'nai B'rith Messenger, January 28th, 1949. --64.12.116.12 21:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Whomever dug up this quote deserves great credit. Hungarian anti-Semitism is a serious problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.27.83 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

An alleged 1949 quote from Mindszenty has nothing to do with 2006 protests, or recent problems, or anything at all with today's Hungary, as clear as clear. Does anyone know a policy which allows removing such clear-cut abuse of a talk page? KissL 09:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Demographics - Minorities

The "5% (other estimates up to 7%)" text contradicts what I found at Roma people. The latter states:

- "In the 2001 census only 190,000 people called themselves Roma, but sociological estimates give much higher numbers, about 5%-10% of the total population" - without references.

- Hungary: 190,046 (2001 census), 500,000 est. - citing the 2001 census as reference for the former, and as reference for the latter (it would be nice to know where they did get that 500 000, by the way)

So I went on to find some info.

Unfortunately I didn't found any original paper about the 2001 census, only two table from this: (Table 1 - National Minorities in Hungary in 1990 and Table 2 - Result of the 2001 Census), I grabbed some columns and calculated the percentages (I don't know where the 1990 estimates are from; number of hungarians, both the 2001 census and the 1990 estimates are calculated from summing the minorities):

Frigo 01:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one thing: can somebody check this reference: (more properly, ) from the 'The Roma minority' section? It erroneously states the number of roma people as 189,984 according to the 2001 census. Frigo 01:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jews in Hungary

In his book The Jewish Century (Princeton, 2004; ISBN 0691119953) writer-historian-professor Yuri Slezkine paints a portrait of remarkable Jewish success in the first few decades of the 20th Century in Hungary. He writes that: "...in 1921 Budapest, 87.8 percent of the members of the stock exhange and 91 percent of the currency brokers were Jews, many of them ennobled..." (48). He continues on to write that: "...in interwar Hungary, more than half and perhaps as much as 90 percent of all industry was controlled by a few closely related Jewish banking families" (48). Soon afterward, he says: "In 1930, about 71 percent of the richest Hungarian taxpayers (with incomes exceeding 200,000 pengo) were Jews (48). Slezkine says that Jews were disproportionately represented amongst college students in 19th-20th Century Hungary: "In Hungary, where Jews constituted about 5 percent of the population, they represented one-fourth of all university students and 43 percent at Budapest Technological University" (49). Jews were also disproportionately a part of the professional class of post-WWI Hungary: "In 1920, 59.9 percent of Hungarian doctors, 50.6 percent of lawyers, 39.25 percent of all privately employed engineers ans chemists, 34.3 percent of editors and journalists, and 28.6 percent of musicians identified themselves as Jews by religion (If one were to add converts to Christianity, the numbers would presumably be much higher) (50). --152.163.100.12 21:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Independence

When did Hungary became independent from Austria-Hungary? Was it not November 1918? And when was this independence recognised? Was it not September 10th 1919? Answer with yes or no. If yes, than you should also appologise for this charade, if not, than please correct the following articles: Hungary#History, Treaty of Saint Germain, Austria#Modern_history, etc. Avaring 19:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because Hungary wasn't a dependency of Austria-Hungary. Constitutionally the Kingdom of Hungary was an independent country in personal union with Austria (and before that the Habsburg Empire). Some regal duties of the King was administered by common ministries, that's all. The same is true for the situation before 1848 although the common ministries were not so clearly defined and the King administered himself the most important regal duties. Zello 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Foundation" (896, or arguably 1000 AD) is a much more significant and clearly-defined event demarcating Hungarian "origin". István 05:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Foundation does not equal independence. A country may be independent from year 1 (when it was founded) to year 2004. But if in the year 2005 it was part of another polity (let`s say a personal union) and the next year leaves that polity, than the year of it`s independence is 2006 (independence from the union; In the article, I marked this with the subnotes: independence from whome, and date of recognition, than is from when the rest of the world regarded Hungary as a different state/polity than Austria-Hungary, as it did to the new Republic of Austria.). Also, you failed to correct those articles. Also, check out Austria and Russia. Avaring 10:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct. Indeed "Foundation" is not "Independence" and was never held out to be such. "Foundation" is clearly the seminal origination event of the Hungarian Nation. The concept of "nation" trumps "polity" in an article about the Hungarian nation. István 13:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A personal union doesn't mean that a country lost its independence. Hungary had its own parliament, government, constitution and legal system before 1918. The current version implies that Hungary was a dependency of Austria-Hungary which is absolutely misleading. Zello 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some other examples from Misplaced Pages can be useful. Bohemia was a separate kingdom ruled by Habsburgs during the Middle Ages, so it is a case similar to the Kingdom of Hungary. However, the article about the Czech Republic reports two dates of independence: 1918 (independence from Austria-Hungary) and 1993 (break-up of Czechoslovakia). Austria itself has 1955 as the year of independence. So, if this is an article about the Republic of Hungary or an independent Hungarian state in general, the date is 1918/1919. A Hungarian state within Austria-Hungary (i.e. within a confederation) was not fully sovereign and it was not a member of the international system because foreign policy and army were shared. Anyway, what a big deal? All the relevant dates can be mentioned in the section about the history of Hungary with a an appropriate explanation. This is just an infobox. Tankred 04:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This time I agree with Tankred, we shouldn't get too worried about the specifics in the infobox (although I'm not saying we should just ignore it either.) Anyone interested enough to read the article will get all the various other origin, foundation, independence, takeover, independence again dates. :)

"Independence" might still be an inaccurate and somewhat misleading term though, since we were *sort of* independent post-1849 (although at the moment the details of the compromise elude me!) and then just more independent after the Great War...it is confusing. :) K. Lástocska 16:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

In fact, it is pretty easy. In 1867, Kingdom of Hungary got a great degree of autonomy, but it still remained part of a confederation (Austria-Hungary). Its position was comparable to that of Virginia or Maryland within the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation (i.e. before the Constitution was passed in 1789). Since 1648, the international law requires independent states to exert control over their relations with other states (i.e. to have an independent foreign policy and military) and to be recognized as independent by other powers. There are several databases of independent states compiled by scholars (the most prestigious one is part of the Correlations of War project) and there have been only few disputes in this area (none of them concerning Hungary). According to these criteria, Hungary became independent in 1918/1919. Tankred 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

then why don't we put as ID the day when the last russion soldier left the country, in 1990? This date fits better the above mentioned definition ?--fz22 15:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a sarcastic comment? I did not invent those criteria. They exist in the international law since 1648 (Peace of Westphalia). An encyclopedia should reflect the existing definitions and conventions. It cannot just pick up random dates because they look cool. The Correlates of War database reports 1918 as the date of independence. The diplomatic recognition was achieved in 1919. Tankred 16:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tankred, I'm not sure states of the US is the best example--Maryland doesn't have its own army and official language... :) K. Lástocska 15:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant the US under the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789). Today, the US is a federation, but it used to be a confederation, similar to Austria-Hungary and other few examples of confederation. Well, Maryland at that time, with its state militia, was in fact militarily more independent than Hungary within Austria-Hungary because Hungary before 1918 had not a separate army. Both foreign policy and military were controlled by the central government in Vienna. As to the official language, there are two regions in Belgium with two different official languages and no one call them "independent states". On the other hand, a bunch of African sovereign states share French as their common official language. Although a language is one of the possible criteria of nationhood or ethnicity, it is not a criterion of statehood. Tankred 16:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, my bad. thanks for clarification. :) K. Lástocska 17:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems: Austria was annexed in 1938 (see Anschluss) till 1945 de facto and de jure did not existed. Austria was reestablished then only in 1955, since that time it was occupied by the allies, and administered apart from W & E Germany (see Austrian State Treaty). Same hapened to Bohemia, it was annexed by Austria and did not existed as a country till 1918. It was an integral part of Austria, it had different judicial status. See Bohemia#Habsburg Monarchy. Hungary or Kingdom of Hungary was never annexed, only they had the same king, and all the things, come from this. De facto it was continuous since it's establishment, de jure since its recognition (1000) by other european countries, when the KoH adopted christianity and the european form of states. Hope I was clear. Tankred, you're wrong again for the xth time again.--Vince 20:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

US states were independent for a while, before they joined the US. The most notable amongst them is Texas's "independent life", untill they joined the US.

Confederation was the South in the American Civil War, not the US itself. Belgium de jure is a different story, and not relevant here. US states has official languages, Arizona had just voted the english as it's official lang, with the 2006 US elections as a referendum. --Vince 20:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

VinceB, please, read what I wrote before you comment on it. The United States was a confederation from 1781 to 1789. I have already written it twice here. The example of Belgium was used only to illustrate the point that an official language is not a criterion of statehood. So, let us switch to the main topic: The Kingdom of Hungary under Habsurgs was not independent (i.e. sovereign, having independent relations with external powers, and recognized as independent by other members of the state system). Or you want to argue that it had his own government negotiating and concluding treaties with other powers and it maintained its own Hungarian ambassadors in other capitals? In addition, it was not always internally autonomous and it was administered directly as part of another state (the Austrian Empire) in the same way as Bohemia was since 1849 until 1867 as well as a couple of times before. In 1849-1867, both kingdoms existed only nominally and the Emperor was King of Bohemia and Hungary in the same way as he was King of Galicia, Rascia, and Dalmatia. The Kingdom of Hungary got a great degree of internal autonomy in 1867, but still remained part of a confederation (without an independent foreign policy and military) in 1867-1918. And it was not recognized as an independent state by other countries in that period. Austria-Hungary was a member of the state system and one of five European great powers. Hungary became truly independent in 1918 and was recognized as such in 1919. This is why the standard lists of independent states (e.g. the Correlates of War database) list Hungary as independent only since 1918. What exactly is incomprehensible in this? Tankred 21:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tankred has made a very important point: "...and it was not recognized as an independent state by other countries in that period." I'm certain that we should write the official date of independence as the date when it was recognized as independent--that's not only the correct thing to write, but also the least controversial. :) K. Lástocska 21:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Tankred, I ask you to stop edit warring utill disputes has been solved. Since it is a CIA World Factbook reference you deleted, you should get at least a equivalent source for yrs.

I am sorry, if you can't fint the obvious connection of my comment to yrs. The European Union is a confederation also, and I guess, we all are sovereign states, with own diplomats. Hungary always had it's own embassadors, and had relations with foreign powers. Nevertheless, only after 1815 were the system of embassadors created, (Diplomatic rank), before it, it had a different system, which was very different from today. I'm intrested, where did you got those what you claim. You know, sources, facts, etc. Let me see. --Vince 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Here are two standard lists of independent states accepted by the world academic community:

• Gleditsch, Kristian S. & Michael D. Ward. 1999. "Interstate System Membership: A Revised List of the Independent States since 1816." International Interactions 25: 393-413.
• Correlates of War Project. 2005. “State System Membership List, v2004.1.”, http://www.correlatesofwar.org/COW2%20Data/SystemMembership/System2004.html

Both of them list Hungary as independent only since 1918. Your reference to the Worldbook does not prove your point because the Worldbook's definition of the "independence date" includes: "the date given may not represent 'independence' in the strict sense, but rather some significant nationhood event such as the traditional founding date or the date of unification, federation, confederation, establishment, fundamental change in the form of government, or state succession". Tankred 22:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In wich part, where? I can't find it. --Vince 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And I am still waiting for any evidence that Hungary has been recognized by other powers as independent since 896. Would you mind listing the states maintaining diplomatic relationship with Hungary say between 1815 and 1918? Which great powers did recognize an "independent" Hungary at that period? Tankred 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Since 1000. You really want me link in documents from 1000 to 1918? Don't be ridicuolus :) Only new things can be linked in. Macartney, Carlile Aylmer: Hungary a short History ISBN 1589290976 - but other books from him. By your book's logic, Hungary is independent since 23 oct. 1989. --Vince 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Otherwise COW deals with wars, mainly, so I do not see, why is this a relevant organization. Even their webpage is not developed yet. Big orgs looks way different (you know, like big orgs) It is a small, and one from a million organization wich is researching in a different field. Not relevant here.--Vince 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

First, please, list the states maintaining diplomatic relationship with Hungary (not the Austrian Empire or Austria-Hungary, but Hungary proper) between 1815 and 1918 and tell us which great powers recognized an "independent" Hungary at that period. Second, there is no more standard list of independent states than the one included in the Correlates of War. It is perhaps the most frequently used database in the field of international relations ever. It is not my fault that you do not know it. Third, your reference is clearly flawed because of its loose definition "...not represent 'independence' in the strict sense, but rather some significant nationhood event...". How would you address that? Finally, please, remove the undue vandalism warning template that you placed on my talk page. Tankred 23:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles