Misplaced Pages

Talk:Hungary: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:13, 3 December 2006 editVinceB (talk | contribs)1,493 edits →Independence← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:25, 4 January 2025 edit undoOrionNimrod (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,707 edits →Middle Ages 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
<!-- Please place new comments at the bottom of the page -->
{{Article history
|action1=GAN
|action1date=9 December 2007
|action1result=not listed
|action1oldid=176861699


|action2=GAN
{| align="center" style="width:400px; background-color:#FFFFFF; border:6px solid #008080; padding:5px;"
|action2date=05:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
|-
|action2link=Talk:Hungary/GA3
| <center><br /><div class="plainlinks">'''See for recently archived discussions.'''<br />(More archived discussions can be reached via a similar link at the top of the page linked above.)<br />&nbsp;</div></center>
|action2result=not listed
|}
|action2oldid=817462153
<br clear="all" />


|action3=GAN
{{WPCD}}
|action3date=16:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
{{V0.5|class=B|category=Geography}}
|action3link=Talk:Hungary/GA4
|action3result=not listed
|action3oldid=909953442


|topic=Geography
==Horthy and the Hungarian Holocaust==
|currentstatus=FGAN
On the the subject of the responsibility of the Horthy Regime for the events of the Hungarian Holocaust, there is an unpublished article on the topic posted at '''mypage.iu.edu/~jschelbl/responsibility/''' (no http:// or www) titled:
|otd1date=2004-04-13|otd1oldid=6718198

|otd2date=2011-03-15|otd2oldid=419036810
'''"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."'''
|otd3date=2011-10-23|otd3oldid=457050400

|otd4date=2012-03-15|otd4oldid=481906027
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. ] 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
|otd5date=2016-10-23|otd5oldid=745800035

}}
== Culture Section ==
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
Added culture section. Any improvements welcome. --]<sup>]</sup> 13:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
{{WikiProject Hungary|importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Eastern Europe|importance=Top}}
Could you please add something about pianist Gyorgy Sandor?
{{WikiProject Countries}}

}}
Wiki's link:
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
http://en.wikipedia.org/Gy%C3%B6rgy_S%C3%A1ndor
|maxarchivesize = 250K

|counter = 2
He was my great Uncle, and in my (somewhat biased) opinion one of Hungary's greatest cultural contributors.
|minthreadsleft = 5

|minthreadstoarchive = 1
Equally worthy of mention are his mentor, Bela Bartok:
|algo = old(21d)

|archive = Talk:Hungary/Archive %(counter)d
http://en.wikipedia.org/B%C3%A9la_Bart%C3%B3k
}}

<!-- Please place new comments at the bottom of the page -->
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. ] 14:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

:Everything is correct you wrote. ] 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 {{unsigned|81.132.67.6|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).

:]] 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. ] 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) {{unsigned|Greier|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. ] 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 ]. 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC) {{unsigned|Greier|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. ] 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. --] 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. ] 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. ] 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. ]] 22:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

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

::Thanks! ]] 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.--]]]]] 14:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

:The source is the. Census authority estimates have priority over other sources. --] | ] 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. ] 12:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

== Henryk Sławik ==

] also helped Hungarian Jews and died. Doesn't he deserve to be mentioned here? What about Hungarian protestants, not mentioned here? ] 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. {{unsigned|Belgrade Glendenning|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 ], but it is ignored:
:"Sorry, I had to remove images of flags from ] article. Please provide the source of the design. As with any other information in wikipedia, the main rule is ]. I am not saying that your drawings are wrong or useless, but flag is a serious thing and requires verification."
`'] ] 22:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

::See ] why your note is, and will continue to be, unanswered: that account is a sock of a permabanned user :) ]] 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 &ndash; Chronological Survey: 2500 BC &ndash; AD 2004

] 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 ] after all :) ]] 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. --] 21:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

:Whomever dug up this quote deserves great credit. Hungarian anti-Semitism is a serious problem. {{unsigned|65.35.27.83|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 ], as clear as clear. Does anyone know a policy which allows removing such clear-cut abuse of a talk page? ]] 09:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== Demographics - Minorities ==

The "5% (other estimates up to 7%)" text contradicts what I found at ]. 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):

{| border=1
! Minority || 2001 census || Percentage || 1990 estimates || Percentages
|-
| Total population || 10,198,000 || 100% || ||
|-
| Hungarians || 9,883,941 || 96.92% || 9,102,000 - 9,354,500 || 89.25% - 91.73%
|-
| Roma || 190,046 || 1.86% || 400,000 - 600,000 || 3.92% - 5.88%
|-
| German || 62,233 || 0.61% || 200,000 - 220,000 || 1.96% - 2.16%
|-
| Slovak || 17,692 || 0.17% || 100,000 - 110,000 || 0.98% - 1.08%
|-
| Croatian || 15,620 || 0.15% || 80,000 - 90,000 || 0.78% - 0.88%
|-
| Romanian || 7,995 || 0.08% || 25,000 || 0.25%
|-
| Ukrainian || 5,070 || 0.05% || 2,000 || 0.02%
|-
| Serbian || 3,816 || 0.04% || 5,000 - 10,000 || 0.05% - 0.10%
|-
| Slovenian || 3,040 || 0.03% || 5,000 || 0.05%
|-
| Polish || 2,962 || 0.03% || 10,000 || 0.10%
|-
| Greek || 2,509 || 0.02% || 4,000 - 4,500 || 0.04%
|-
| Bulgarian || 1,358 || 0.01% || 3,000 - 3,500 || 0.03%
|-
| Ruthenian (] ?) || 1,098 || 0.01% || 6,000 || 0.06%
|-
| Armenian || 620 || 0.01% || 3,500 - 10,000 || 0.03% - 0.10%
|}

] 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. ] 01:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


== Jews in Hungary ==
In his book ''The Jewish Century'' (Princeton, 2004; ISBN 0691119953) writer-historian-professor ] 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). --] 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: ], ], ], etc. ] 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. ] 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

:"Foundation" (896, or arguably 1000 AD) is a much more significant and clearly-defined event demarcating Hungarian "origin". ] 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 ]) 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 ''']'''.). Also, you failed to correct those articles. Also, check out ] and ]. ] 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. ] 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. ] 01:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


== Contradictory? ==
Perhaps some other examples from Misplaced Pages can be useful. ] was a separate kingdom ruled by Habsburgs during the Middle Ages, so it is a case similar to the ]. However, the article about the ] reports two dates of independence: 1918 (independence from Austria-Hungary) and 1993 (break-up of Czechoslovakia). ] 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. ] 04:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Under "Demographics" the number of Roma is given as 300,000. In the next line as a result of the census their number is given as 609,000. Which figure is correct? Or how is the difference explained?


Also: to my knowledge not all gipsies in Hungary are Roma. They are just the largest group. Hence the term "Roma" is regarded as an imposition by the smaller gipsy groups.
::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. :)
<pre>
::"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. :) ] 16:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
== Demography ==


=== Urbanization ===
:::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. ] 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
{{Main|List of cities and towns of Hungary}}
{{Largest cities of Hungary}}
{{copied |from =www.en.wikipedia/List of cities and towns of Hungary}}
]
] has 3,152 localities as of July 15, 2013. 346 towns (Hungarian term: ''város'', plural: ''városok''; the terminology doesn't distinguish between ] and ]s – the term town is used in official translations) and 2,806 villages (Hungarian: ''község'', plural: ''községek''). The number of towns can change, since villages can be elevated to town status by act of the President. The capital Budapest has a special status and is not included in any county while 23 of the towns are so-called urban counties (''megyei jogú város'' – town with county rights). All county seats except Budapest are urban counties.
Four of the cities (], ], ], and ]) have agglomerations, and the Hungarian Statistical Office distinguishes seventeen other areas in earlier stages of agglomeration development.<ref>http://portal.ksh.hu/portal/page?_pageid=37,412178&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL#sett</ref>
The largest city is the capital, Budapest, the smallest town is ] with 1038 inhabitants (2010). The largest village is ] (population: 10,123 as of 2010) There are more than 100 villages with fewer than 100 inhabitants while the smallest villages have fewer than 20 inhabitants.
{{reflist talk}}
</pre>


== Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2024 ==
:::: 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 ?--] 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. ] 16:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Hungary|answered=yes}}
<small>Tankred, I'm not sure states of the US is the best example--Maryland doesn't have its own army and official language... :) </small> ] 15:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Please change, that the standard Hungarian is based on what people speak at Budapest. It is based on what they speak in Zemplén. That's what got standardised with the language revolution. Leaving local expressions and forms behind. ] (]) 18:08, 25 August 2024 (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. ] 16:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, my bad. thanks for clarification. :) ] 17:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] <small> (]) </small> 02:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Problems: Austria was annexed in 1938 (see ]) 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 ]). 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 ]. Hungary or Kingdom of Hungary was never annexed, only they had the same king, and all the things, come from this. ] it was continuous since it's establishment, ] 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.--] <sup>] :-)</sup> 20:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


Technically both are true: standard Hungarian developed from the Northern Hungarian dialect, but the variety spoken in Budapest (and almost everywhere else except maybe the westernmost places and some territories outside current borders) is now identical to it. Will try to find sources but I'm not sure there'll be any English ones. – ]&nbsp;] 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
US states were independent for a while, before they joined the US. The most notable amongst them is ]'s "independent life", untill they joined the US.


== Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2024 (3) ==
Confederation was the ''South'' in the ], 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. --] <sup>] :-)</sup> 20:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Hungary|answered=yes}}
: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? ] 21:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I need to fix a spelling mistake . ] (]) 08:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)


:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] <small> (]) </small> 02:44, 18 September 2024 (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. :) ] 21:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


== Government info box ==
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.


Hello, I believe it should be noted in the government info box that the government of Hungary is currently authoritarian and autocratic but I wanted to be able to reach a consensus before adding anything. ] (]) 22:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry, if you can't fint the obvious connection of my comment to yrs. The ] 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, (]), 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. --] <sup>] :-)</sup> 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


:Which sources call it autocratic? I do not think most political scientists would characterize it as such. Even the EIU Democracy Index still categorizes it as a 'flawed democracy'. Either way, per ], it is better to explain this in the text. ] (]) 10:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:Here are two standard lists of independent states accepted by the world academic community:
:: calls Hungary "electoral autocracy" since 2020, but I agree that this is better discussed in the main text. ] (]) 11:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:*Gleditsch, Kristian S. & Michael D. Ward. 1999. "Interstate System Membership: A Revised List of the Independent States since 1816." ''International Interactions'' 25: 393-413.
:::This category seems to include countries like Belarus, India, Russia and Ukraine, some of which have consolidated authoritarian regimes while others do not. I find it a bit strange that V-Dem has consistently categorized Russia as an electoral autocracy since 1991. ] (]) 11:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:*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''". ] 22:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:::In wich part, where? I can't find it. --] <sup>] :-)</sup> 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


==Middle Ages==
: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? ] 22:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


{{ping|Are2The2}} This is the only History section to include subsections. It also includes excessive detail for this high-level ] - discussion of genetics, for example, is best left to a subarticle. ] (]) 01:15, 4 January 2025 (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. ]: Hungary a short History ISBN 1589290976 - but other books from him. By your book's logic, Hungary is independent since 23 oct. 1989. --] <sup>] :-)</sup> 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


:I think the tag should have been placed higher if it relates to the section as a whole.
Otherwise ] deals with wars, mainly, so I do not see, why is this a relevant organization. Their webpage is not developed yet. It is a small, and one from a million organization wich is researching in a different field. Not relevant here.--] <sup>] :-)</sup> 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
:The origins of the Hungarian conquerors is a significant detail. I summarised “genetic and linguistic evidence” as “research”. ] (]) 01:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::Hi, I agree with ]. Morover I recognized a while ago that detailed edits of ] are just a selective cherry pickings. I dont think it is important here in a main country article that Byzantine sources called Hungary as Turcia 1100 years ago. It should be in sub articles. ] likes only the ] in 1718 which restored only a smaller last piece of Hungary while ] ended in 1699 (probably he likes mention that Turkish rule was longer in the entire country). At the moment "turn of 18th century" mention that thing in the short lead. While he removes for example the ] which was a really important Hungarian state during that period. I also observed that ] carefully cherry picking only the Siberian theory thing, spam this everywhere, even does not fit in this article, while he removed the mentioning the other areas from here: ], morover many of his sources were random to force this Siberia mania at any cost, as I checked already some, and I corrected some of them. As we can read in the source, Szeifert et al. 2022 proposed that most of the early Hungarian tribes originated from the Volga-Kama and Southern Ural regions, where they were composed of a mixed population. Despite, ] still use that source for his Siberia mania, however the source does not say that, this is clearly a bad fait edit. There are many genetic study about the origin of Hungarian conquerors, but ] did not like those one in other articles which were not supporting that Siberia thing. That is important, but not this country summary main article. ] (]) 01:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::Yes, the vast majority of Hungary was ceded to the Habsburgs in 1699. My concern was simply that it was inaccurate to state that Hungary was reunited at the turn of the 18th century. Certain areas, albeit relatively small areas at the southern border, were still under Ottoman rule until the Treaty of Passarowitz in 1718. ] (]) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::Hi, do you think “Hungary was not reunited” from the 3 pieces in 1699 (Royal Hungary, Ottoman Hungary, Principality of Transylvania: divided in 1541) just because a smaller part (Banat) did not recover yet just in 1718? <nowiki>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/File:Europe,_1700%E2%80%941714.png</nowiki> ] (]) 09:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::Banat of Temeşvar, Belgrade and Syrmia. ] (]) 20:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Not only the Banat of Temeşvar. ] (]) 20:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That bulge area: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/File:Europe,_1700%E2%80%941714.png ] (]) 21:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:25, 4 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hungary article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 21 days 
Former good article nomineeHungary was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 9, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
December 30, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
August 9, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 13, 2004, March 15, 2011, October 23, 2011, March 15, 2012, and October 23, 2016.
Current status: Former good article nominee
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconHungary Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary 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.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEastern Europe (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe
WikiProject iconCountries
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry
WikiProject Countries to-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Contradictory?

Under "Demographics" the number of Roma is given as 300,000. In the next line as a result of the census their number is given as 609,000. Which figure is correct? Or how is the difference explained?

Also: to my knowledge not all gipsies in Hungary are Roma. They are just the largest group. Hence the term "Roma" is regarded as an imposition by the smaller gipsy groups. 

== Demography ==
=== Urbanization ===
 {{Main|List of cities and towns of Hungary}}
 {{Largest cities of Hungary}}
 {{copied |from =www.en.wikipedia/List of cities and towns of Hungary}}
 ]
] has 3,152 localities as of July 15, 2013. 346 towns (Hungarian term: ''város'', plural: ''városok''; the terminology doesn't distinguish between ] and ]s – the term town is used in official translations) and 2,806 villages (Hungarian: ''község'', plural: ''községek''). The number of towns can change, since villages can be elevated to town status by act of the President. The capital Budapest has a special status and is not included in any county while 23 of the towns are so-called urban counties (''megyei jogú város'' – town with county rights). All county seats except Budapest are urban counties.
Four of the cities (], ], ], and ]) have agglomerations, and the Hungarian Statistical Office distinguishes seventeen other areas in earlier stages of agglomeration development.<ref>http://portal.ksh.hu/portal/page?_pageid=37,412178&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL#sett</ref>
The largest city is the capital, Budapest, the smallest town is ] with 1038 inhabitants (2010). The largest village is ] (population: 10,123 as of 2010) There are more than 100 villages with fewer than 100 inhabitants while the smallest villages have fewer than 20 inhabitants.
{{reflist talk}}

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change, that the standard Hungarian is based on what people speak at Budapest. It is based on what they speak in Zemplén. That's what got standardised with the language revolution. Leaving local expressions and forms behind. 2001:4C4D:1E08:3800:5424:C1FF:DE22:E5D2 (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Technically both are true: standard Hungarian developed from the Northern Hungarian dialect, but the variety spoken in Budapest (and almost everywhere else except maybe the westernmost places and some territories outside current borders) is now identical to it. Will try to find sources but I'm not sure there'll be any English ones. – Alensha  16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2024 (3)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I need to fix a spelling mistake . 110.174.201.187 (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:44, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Government info box

Hello, I believe it should be noted in the government info box that the government of Hungary is currently authoritarian and autocratic but I wanted to be able to reach a consensus before adding anything. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Which sources call it autocratic? I do not think most political scientists would characterize it as such. Even the EIU Democracy Index still categorizes it as a 'flawed democracy'. Either way, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, it is better to explain this in the text. Mellk (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
V-dem calls Hungary "electoral autocracy" since 2020, but I agree that this is better discussed in the main text. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 11:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
This category seems to include countries like Belarus, India, Russia and Ukraine, some of which have consolidated authoritarian regimes while others do not. I find it a bit strange that V-Dem has consistently categorized Russia as an electoral autocracy since 1991. Mellk (talk) 11:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Middle Ages

@Are2The2: This is the only History section to include subsections. It also includes excessive detail for this high-level summary article - discussion of genetics, for example, is best left to a subarticle. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the tag should have been placed higher if it relates to the section as a whole.
The origins of the Hungarian conquerors is a significant detail. I summarised “genetic and linguistic evidence” as “research”. Are2The2 (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I agree with Nikkimaria. Morover I recognized a while ago that detailed edits of Are2The2 are just a selective cherry pickings. I dont think it is important here in a main country article that Byzantine sources called Hungary as Turcia 1100 years ago. It should be in sub articles. Are2The2 likes only the Treaty of Passarowitz in 1718 which restored only a smaller last piece of Hungary while Ottoman Hungary ended in 1699 (probably he likes mention that Turkish rule was longer in the entire country). At the moment "turn of 18th century" mention that thing in the short lead. While he removes for example the Principality of Transylvania which was a really important Hungarian state during that period. I also observed that Are2The2 carefully cherry picking only the Siberian theory thing, spam this everywhere, even does not fit in this article, while he removed the mentioning the other areas from here: Magyar tribes, morover many of his sources were random to force this Siberia mania at any cost, as I checked already some, and I corrected some of them. As we can read in the source, Szeifert et al. 2022 proposed that most of the early Hungarian tribes originated from the Volga-Kama and Southern Ural regions, where they were composed of a mixed population. Despite, Are2The2 still use that source for his Siberia mania, however the source does not say that, this is clearly a bad fait edit. There are many genetic study about the origin of Hungarian conquerors, but Are2The2 did not like those one in other articles which were not supporting that Siberia thing. That is important, but not this country summary main article. OrionNimrod (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the vast majority of Hungary was ceded to the Habsburgs in 1699. My concern was simply that it was inaccurate to state that Hungary was reunited at the turn of the 18th century. Certain areas, albeit relatively small areas at the southern border, were still under Ottoman rule until the Treaty of Passarowitz in 1718. Are2The2 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, do you think “Hungary was not reunited” from the 3 pieces in 1699 (Royal Hungary, Ottoman Hungary, Principality of Transylvania: divided in 1541) just because a smaller part (Banat) did not recover yet just in 1718? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/File:Europe,_1700%E2%80%941714.png OrionNimrod (talk) 09:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Banat of Temeşvar, Belgrade and Syrmia. Are2The2 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Not only the Banat of Temeşvar. Are2The2 (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
That bulge area: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/File:Europe,_1700%E2%80%941714.png OrionNimrod (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: