Talk:Budapest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

WikiProject Echo has identified Budapest as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Czech language Wikipedia.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale.

[edit] Promo links should be removed

The article started to accumulate promotional and advertisement-like links, most typically accommodation links (hotels, apartmans). I'd like to raise attention because as a Dmoz editor I know well that the most heated categories there are the hotels/accommodation cats since it has the money, and these areas press their advertisement websites hardest. I have no problem with them as long as they advertise in the right places, but I am not completely confident that a Wikipedia article is the right place for that.

If nobody voices their reasons against then I intend to remove all the non-official tourist office external links related to commercial activities like accommodation and tourism (and advise that on other city and country articles, too). --grin ✎ 10:04, 2004 Jun 23 (UTC)

Okay, I see no objections, proceeding. --grin ✎ 08:55, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)

the last link, Hungarian Wireless Community - what has it to do with Budapest?? Alensha 13:50, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Budapesht pronunciation

I disagree with the pronunciation shown in this article of Budapest as boo-dah-peSHt. In Hungarian, the word is pronounced something like 'bu-do-pesht', with the 'o' being an open 'o' similar to the Estonian o-tilde (õ). In English however, the city has been anglicised to be pronounced Bu-duh-pest, or Boo-da-pest, and this is what is used all around the world. This anglicization is similar to the way in which Bucureşti, the Romanian capital, has been anglicized to Bucharest. The only reason why the spelling wasn't changed from Budapest to a more English spelling is because Budapest was English enough already (no accented/foreign characters, or unnatural, difficult letter combinations). For this reason, we either can make the pronunciation reflect the true Hungarian, which would be quite hard, or keep it as the commonly-used, English version, Bu-duh-pest. Ronline 07:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I tink Boo-dah-pesht is better. The 'a' letter in 'dah' is not an open 'o', it is a short a said with more closed mouth than usual, between 'o', 'aa' and 'a', but more likely to 'a'; like in english words 'JennA', 'totAl', 'bAr', 'dOg' (US), 'hAt'. It's like [α], and not [e:]. Gubbubu

I agree with Ronline in that there is no sh sound in the English pronunciation and to include it is both pretensious and misleading. I propose "BOO-dah-pest". --Polynova 23:37, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ferihegy I

To the best of my knowledge Ferihegy I is used only for cargo - or are there still some charters that use it? I think the reference should be deleted.

P.S. One of the hardest things about describing Hungarian pronunciation to Americans is that Hungarians do not realize how bad Americans are at making unfamiliar sounds! Thus, what is "good" advice for Americans, seems wrong to Hungarians.

Actually, Ferihegy 1 is currently not used at all, it is being rebuilt. When it re-opens (on 1 September 2005, if I recall correctly) it'll be used by low-cost airlines, I believe. So, I suggest that we keep the reference to Ferihegy I as well.

Yeah, you were almost right! From 2001 to 2004, Ferihegy 1 was only used by cargo planes. Before 2001, Ferihegy 1 was used by passanger and cargo planes also! While Ferihegy 1 was under construction, cargo used Ferihegy 2A, and passenger planes used Ferihegy 2B. But now, Ferihegy 2 is not enough for passenger planes, so Ferihegy 1 is need to be used by them, least until Ferihegy 3 is ready (the work in F3 is not even started)

About the pronounciation: I will record the correct pronounciation... you'll just wait...

[edit] Pictures

I uploaded three pics from my visit to Budapest last year, but currently only one is used in an article. They are:

If they can be used anywhere then feel free. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They're beautiful! Someone should write more info on Budapest, because already there are too much pictures for this short text, and it's impossible to arrange them, but it would be very good to include these photos too... Alensha 17:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If somebody wants to process it, there's a large pic of Budapest from space on the NASA site at image PIA04952 --Red King 23:02, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LANGUAGE SPOKEN

I just noticed that on the main page there is no mention of the Language Spoken in Hungary. While it may be very obvious to many, some may want to be sure what language is spoken.

[edit] External links

The external links section in this article is huge. Can someone who knows the subject check and trim the list? See Wikipedia:External links for criteria. Rl 13:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguition: Budapest?

Noted there are 2 other Budapests, both in the US: one in Georgia and another in Missouri.

Any info about them? How did they get their names?

[edit] Economy

Nothing on the city's economy, no per capita GDP, nothing on prominent industries past or present. Has anyone got a source from which we could fill this in? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Try the CIA world factbook that has all the info about things like that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.92.141 (talk • contribs) July 13, 2006.

[edit] Texture of life

The baths, the parks, the patisseries? And certainly the Belváros deserves more than just a mention in passing in the list of districts: it is one of Europe's truly great urban districts. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Lot's not forget the beer, the veres hurka, and the babes. Dsol 14:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please delete Holocaust promotion from Budapest page

"Around a third of Budapest's 250,000 Jewish inhabitants died through Nazi genocide during the World War II German occupation in 1944, most having passed through the Budapest ghetto. Despite this, Budapest today has the highest number of Jewish citizens per capita of any European city."

The above two sentences do not belong on the Budapest page. Regardless of the veracity of the above information it belongs on the Holocaust page. __________________________________________________

After an email dialogue with User:Dmcdevit I am informed that the proper protocol for the deletion of text is to establish a discussion of reason. User:Dmcdevit states that "Blanking large chunks of articles, especially controversial ones like that, is often viewed as Vandalism."and he directed me to read WP:NPOV. Apologies to Wikiworld.

My reason for the exclusion of reference to the Holocaust on a city page about Budapest is that it is "controversial" and belongs elsewhere.

According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." A NEUTRAL point of view would require the excision of the Holocaust reference from this page.

Thanks, I hope you are able to find consensus in that discussion. Dmcdevit·t 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand why an edit of controversial content (by your own acknowledgement) that clearly violates the NPOV commands of the supreme Wiki authority needs to be vetted with a consensus. The WP:NPOV is an extremely well thought out and expressed statement of integrity and it would be honourable to abide its tenets. Anything less has questionable merit.Bloblaw 10:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with NPOV. NPOV, as such, is simply the matter that opinions be correctly attributed, rather than in the narrative voice of the article.

Having the highest number of Jewish citizens per capita of any European city is certainly notable, and I don't see how we could reasonably write about that without mentioning how that community was affected by the Holocaust.

And what, precisely, do you mean by "Holocaust promotion"? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the material should be kept in. Obiously it's exteremely relevant if we're going to have a section on the demographic history of budapest. The fact that large numbers of Hungarian jews were deported and murdered is not in serious dispute or even "controvertial." The exact numbers, however, require a citation to some reference. Dsol 01:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a citation on the specific number (I didn't write the passage in question). It may be spot-on or it may be just a bit high, but it is certainly not misleadingly high. Much as in Bucharest, Romania, the capital proved to be the (relatively) safest place for a Jew during the War. See, for example, Hungary After the German Occupation on the site of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

The situation for Jews in Hungary outside of Budapest (the expanded Hungary, including parts of Slovakia and Transylvania) was utterly dire: "In mid-May 1944, the Hungarian authorities, in coordination with the German Security Police, began to systematically deport the Hungarian Jews. … In less than two months, nearly 440,000 Jews were deported from Hungary in more than 145 trains. … By the end of July 1944, the only Jewish community left in Hungary was that of Budapest, the capital. … Of approximately 825,000 Jews living in Hungary in 1941, about 63,000 died or were killed prior to the German occupation of March 1944. Under German occupation, just over 500,000 died from maltreatment or were murdered. Some 255,000 Jews, less than one-third of those who had resided within enlarged Hungary in March 1944, survived the Holocaust. About 190,000 of these were residents of Hungary in its 1920 borders."

Budapest's Jews, in contrast to the rest of the country, got off relatively lightly until the Arrow Cross took over. Same site, article on Budapest: "Before World War II, approximately 200,000 Jews lived in Budapest, making it the center of Hungarian Jewish cultural life. … some 5,000 refugees, primarily from Germany and Austria, … 8,000 Slovak Jewish refugees …" During the general Hungarian deportation "About 25,000 Jews from the suburbs of Budapest were rounded up and transported to the Auschwitz-Birkenau extermination camp." "On November 8, 1944, the Hungarians concentrated more than 70,000 Jews--men, women, and children--in the Ujlaki brickyards in Obuda, and from there forced them to march on foot to camps in Austria. Thousands were shot and thousands more died as a result of starvation or exposure to the bitter cold. …" There is no clear statement of how many died. "In November 1944, the Arrow Cross ordered the remaining Jews in Budapest into a closed ghetto. Jews who did not have protective papers issued by a neutral power were to move to the ghetto by early December. Between December 1944 and the end of January 1945, the Arrow Cross took as many as 20,000 Jews from the ghetto, shot them along the banks of the Danube, and threw their bodies into the river." So the claim of about a third is probably roughly accurate, especially if the suburbs are counted; the big question mark would be how many of the 70,000 forcibly marched toward Austria survived, which could yield a number anywhere from just over 10% (just over 20% with the suburbs) to nearly 50%. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response - however there can be no doubt that both the "facts and figures" of the Holocaust and the vilification of Germans are controvertial, both domestically and specifically internationally. This controversy cannot be denied. For every "fact" or "number" you state above, counterpoint "facts" and "numbers" exist. Whether you/we agree with these counterpoint "facts" is irrelevant. The argument exists and does not belong on the Budapest page in any form.

As long as the statement "Around a third of Budapest's 250,000 Jewish inhabitants died through Nazi genocide during the World War II German occupation in 1944, most having passed through the Budapest ghetto." remains on a city page about Budapest, I strongly object on the grounds that it is biased and not neutral, being clearly contrary to the NPOV demand of Wikipedia authority, that statements of controvertial "facts" not be made without acknowledgement of it being controvertial.

BTW- Promotion is the advancement of an idea or cause. The inclusion of this above statement certainly qualifies in its attempted advancement of a cause and its ramifications.

This is supposed to be a page on the city of Budapest not a page on the Holocaust or Jewish/German conflict. That belongs elsewhere. Bloblaw 10:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the "cause" in question being? I'm trying to presume good faith, but the obvious reading of your remarks amounts to Holocaust denial. I am hoping I am misunderstanding you. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The facts and figures here, which are in no need of quotation marks whatsoever, are no more questionable than historical facts in general. Unless all historical facts must be removed, it's staying. If there are other sources which say something else, we should give a range of estimates, and note how they are each derived. The Rape of Nanjing article does this quite nicely. Whatever the numbers, though, the info definitely belongs in a section on Hungary's demographic history. Incidentally, while holocaust denial is not such a rarity on the internet, I never heard any actual Hungarians questioning the veracity of the holocaust. Certainly the man I rented a room from in 2003, who was forced to bury another man alive by the arrow cross (the victim had been caught keeping his own money, after the authorities had demanded it be turned in prior to deportation), would not put scare quotes around these facts and figures.Dsol 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Dsol, I believe you and I are largely in agreement, but I do have a problem with the specific wording of the text. Right now it says "Around a third of Budapest's 250,000 Jewish inhabitants died through Nazi genocide during the World War II German occupation in 1944." I requested citation. You added http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005458 as a citation. That is one of the two links I provided earlier in this discussion, but alone it is not adequate citation for the statement made here. I suggest that you might want to re-read that page and re-read my remarks above. In particular, as far as Budapest is concerned that page deals mainly with the killings by the Arrow Cross after the German occupation had ended. Most of the deaths of Jews in Budapest proper came in the period of Arrow Cross rule. So it does not bear out the statement that this occurred during the German occupation, rather the contrary. There is no shortage of anti-Semitic atrocity for which the German Nazi apparatus deserves blame, but in the case of Budapest the most easily documented killings were the 20,000 or so by the Arrow Cross, about 10% of the city's Jewish population. And another 25,000 well-documented deaths were from the suburbs (see my other citation). And then there are those who died on the forced march to the Austrian border. So I am going to edit to say "Between 20% and 40% of Greater Budapest's 250,000 Jewish inhabitants died through Nazi and Arrow Cross genocide during 1944 and early 1945. [1] [2]." -- Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Dsol 11:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

From the tone and content of your posts it would be safe to assume that you are Zionists. I can feel that you are both a breath away from going ad hominem in your discontent. You refuse to acknowledge the controversy in that there are over a billion muslim people in this world that do not agree with your point of view. Instead you both have decided to heat up and expand the one sided propaganda on the Budapest page. TSK! TSK!

It is my understanding that Wikipedia is attempting to service the whole world in a fair and unbiased praxis by maintaining a NPOV. For Wikipedia to do otherwise will undermine the integrity and credibility of their content in the eyes of the world. Only Wikipedia has anything to lose here.

Why don't you go on about how many Jews were killed by the American bombings of Budapest? To you it's all Nazis and Jews. No one else seems to matter.

A city page about Budapest is not the venue to promote or debate either side of the Holocaust issue.

Propaganda from either side on any issue does not belong on the frontpage of my hometown.

Put your POV here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Hungary

I have no interest in challenging or supporting or debating your Zionist dogma.

But remember there is no safety in unlimited ideological hubris.

As a test case for me, Wikipedia (through agent Dmcdevit) is receiving low marks for maintaining a neutral point of view here. Bloblaw 10:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

These are historical facts we're talking about. Zionisim and the opinions of a billion muslims have are not even remotely relevant, so take your POV elsewhere. As I said before, this is obviously relevant to a section on demographic history. If you can find a source that shows American bombings were relevant to the demographic history of budapest, as the holocaust obviously was, then put than info in. Otherwise, no one cares. Dsol 11:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bloblaw, you have been proven wrong, and you have moved on to personal attacks, specifically on Dsol's user page. Please follow wikipedia policies, and use the talk pages to advance the article and save time rather than to make baseless accusations. Thanks, --Urthogie 12:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I should just not respond, but in this case I'm going to allow myself to be tempted.

You call me a "Zionist". I certainly believe that Israel has the right to exist, at least within the 1967 borders. If that makes me a Zionist, then analogous reasoning would also make me (among other things) simlutaneously a Hungarian nationalist, a Romanian nationalist, a German nationalist, and (a far more emphatic) Palestinian nationalist, since I feel the Palestinians have a right to the statehood they have not yet been granted. Or, to put it another way, if believing in Israel's right to exist makes one a Zionist, then for at least the last decade of his life Yasser Arafat was a Zionist. But its hard to see what Zionism has to do with the matter, unless perhaps you divide the world into Zionists and anti-Semites, or Zionists and Holocaust deniers.
Assuming that what you are characterizing as my "point of view" is that the Holocaust occurred, then (1) I doubt there are over a billion Muslim holocaust deniers, but if there are, that would be a sad commentary on historical knowledge inthe Muslim world. (2) You haven't said in so many words that you deny that the Holocaust occurred, but you do seem to be saying that "neutrality" means that Wikipedia should take a neutral stance on the matter. Perhaps we should also doubt the very existence of Budapest on the basis of Robert Benchley's famous joke, "There is no such place as Budapest. Perhaps you are thinking of Bucharest… and there is no such place as Bucharest, either."
You ask, "Why don't you go on about how many Jews were killed by the American bombings of Budapest?" I wouldn't single out Jews in such a matter, but if you have some reliable statistics on how many non-combattants were killed in the American bombings of Budapest, it would belong in the article.
"To you it's all Nazis and Jews." Pretty funny, given that I'm the one who has been pointing out here that the slaughter of Jews in Budapest was not mainly carried out by the Nazis, it was carried out by the Arrow Cross.

The rest of this is beneath being replied to. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, I don't think you need to respond to any of the ad hominem nonsense. As for the actual issues, Blowblaw thinks that massive changes to the demography of Budapest do not belong in the article about Budapest. Alas, he is alone in thinking this: a consensus of editors agrees that it is relevant to the article. And he doubts that the statistics are accurate. That's his prerogative, but mainstream sources delimit a range of numbers for how many Budapest Jews died during WWII. Bloblaw may be able to produce some marginal sources who argue only eighteen Budapest Jews (or some other very low and exculpatory number), and they of typhus, but these sources are trumped by the more reliable sources. End of story. Babajobu 07:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel - Thank you for your thoughtful response - it's late -I will thoughtfully respond at a later time.Bloblaw 10:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

First let me say that my argument for the deletion of the sentence "Between 20% and 40% of Greater Budapest's 250,000 Jewish inhabitants died through Nazi and Arrow Cross genocide during 1944 and early 1945." is not an attempt to establish a debate/dialogue on Holocaust vs Holocaust Denial vs Historical Revisionism.

The second sentence "Despite this, Budapest today has the highest number of Jewish citizens per capita of any European city", I could accept as mildly relevant if this fact included a current citation of record. This fact could be relevant because it relates to present day population demographics. It would be even more relevant if other minority/majority group percentages in European cities were included in this statistical statement.

As a point of proposal for its irrelevance, the first sentence is just an aside comment because if the second sentence is a fact then the first sentence played little to no role in modern day Budapest.

My request is not attempting to reform anyone's POV on the Holocaust, only that references to it do not belong on the homepage for Budapest because it was an isolated incident in time that has had no lasting relevance to modern day Budapest. The inclusion of the first sentence appears to be only a grab at an opportunity to push a bias.

Perhaps I should just not respond, but in this case I'm going to allow myself to be tempted.

1. You call me a "Zionist". I certainly believe that Israel has the right to exist, at least within the 1967 borders. If that makes me a Zionist, then analogous reasoning would also make me (among other things) simlutaneously a Hungarian nationalist, a Romanian nationalist, a German nationalist, and (a far more emphatic) Palestinian nationalist, since I feel the Palestinians have a right to the statehood they have not yet been granted. Or, to put it another way, if believing in Israel's right to exist makes one a Zionist, then for at least the last decade of his life Yasser Arafat was a Zionist. But its hard to see what Zionism has to do with the matter, unless perhaps you divide the world into Zionists and anti-Semites, or Zionists and Holocaust deniers.

Yes, I assumed that you and other active editors on this subject page are Zionists. Which interestingly has been received as a pejorative statement prompting rumored threats of me being banned from Wikipedia.

To me, you and others here being Zionist is very relevant as an understanding of systemic bias. Dsol has gone so far as to say "...the opinions of a billion Muslims are not even remotely relevant."

Now that is systemic bias if I ever heard it. I could even argue that it appears as contempt or even religious hatred. If you are a Zionist and living in an English speaking country it is definitely pertinent and would best be understood by recipients of your controversial statements on controversial subjects. The fact that you feel your POV is unassailable clearly comes for your systemic bias.

A number of editors here seem to take an interest and pride in being involved at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_bias . I hope that they can overcome their systemic biases and see this point.

However, although this doesn't belong on a discussion of this page, you probably are curious to know what I think about Zionism. I wish that all people could live in harmony and respect for others. Would I want someone to come and take my house because they say that God promised it to them and if I refused they then physically removed me and my family by force or even slaughter? I don't think so. I might not like it but they could invoke expropriation and pay me for it so that I could relocate to an equivalent situation. This has not happened in the Middle East under Zionism. I am also uncertain about that whole "Promised Land" thing. It is my understanding that the majority of Jews are Ashkenazi not Semitic which puts their heritage in Eastern Europe not the Middle East. I think that most religions are a great divider and an excuse for extreme self-interest, prejudice and contempt for others.

2. Assuming that what you are characterizing as my "point of view" is that the Holocaust occurred, then (1) I doubt there are over a billion Muslim holocaust deniers, but if there are, that would be a sad commentary on historical knowledge inthe Muslim world. (2) You haven't said in so many words that you deny that the Holocaust occurred, but you do seem to be saying that "neutrality" means that Wikipedia should take a neutral stance on the matter. Perhaps we should also doubt the very existence of Budapest on the basis of Robert Benchley's famous joke, "There is no such place as Budapest. Perhaps you are thinking of Bucharest… and there is no such place as Bucharest, either."

That's a slightly amusing nonsensical quote but we know that behind it is your attempt at contempt and belittlement.

Although not from me, the issue of Holocaust Denial, along with the subsequent behind the scenes rallying about banning, has raised its head here.

Did the Holocaust, as described, happen? To you and many others it is completely true and unchallengeable - sacrosanct.

However, again not appropriately on this discussion page, I have a hunch that you probably are curious to know what I think about the Holocaust.

In a number of countries (ie Canada, Germany etc) it is against the law to publicly question the orthodoxy of the Holocaust under penalty of imprisonment. This is to my knowledge the only historical event in our culture for which a public dialogue is outlawed. Why is that? What public good is this protecting?

During WWII the US and Canada interned those they considered enemies of the State (Germans, Italians, Japanese). The debate of whether right or wrong belongs elsewhere. During WWII Germany considered Jews enemies of the State and interned them in camps or exported them. The debate of whether right or wrong belongs elsewhere.

Was there a Nazi plan of internment and/or expulsion for the Jews? I have no doubt. Systemic mass murders? For me the jury is still out but dialogue has been stifled by the court.

Billions? Who knows? There is a very good chance that globally there could be billions of "nonbelievers" of the Holocaust orthodoxy in which you believe.

However I do not want to debate this subject on this discussion page.

4. "To you it's all Nazis and Jews." Pretty funny, given that I'm the one who has been pointing out here that the slaughter of Jews in Budapest was not mainly carried out by the Nazis, it was carried out by the Arrow Cross.

This confusion as to the active parties involved is in support of the point that the first sentence is both vague and controversial and inappropriate.

The rest of this is beneath being replied to. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The rest is what it is actually all about - fair play and integrity.

OOps forgot to sign it Bloblaw 12:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason people take it as pejorative is because it's like Bill O'reilly asking a black model what her view on affirmative action is, when she came to talk about her career. It's an irrelevant question.--Urthogie 13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Taking into context all your postings and comments on this issue here and on talk:pages, I would like to share some things that I have learned as my final comment.

1) There is a very strong interest on Wikipedia in preventing anything that would question or not reference the orthodoxy of the Holocaust.

2) The promotion of the Jewish agenda on Wikipedia appears to be sacrosanct.

3) On Wikipedia, removing a POV and replacing it with no POV is considered the same as publishing your own POV.

4) I will be threatened with banishment if I call anyone a Zionist.

5) It is acceptable to assert that the Holocaust package happened because it is supported by the mainstream media.

6) It is unacceptable to question the details of the Holocaust because it is not supported by the mainstream media.

7) In many countries it is illegal to publicly question the Holocaust under penalty of imprisonment, the media included of course.

8) English language media is corrupted with special interest ownership and has lost its credibility with much of the public.

9) On the subject of historical accuracy, Wikipedia will only give respect to those that embrace the interpretation of mainstream media. - Therefore Catch 22.

10) Contempt, belittlement, ganging, threats of banishment and collective denial are the weapons of Wikipedia.

11) Wikipedia NPOV is a great concept but is spineless to override any administrative systemic bias.

12) As a newbie, it didn't take me long to discover that the corruption of our mainstream media extends well within Wikipedia.

13) I have learned that interestingly, Zionist is a pejorative and that Holocaust denier is not.

14) Attributing anyone's POV to their having a systemic bias such as Nationality, Homosexuality or Zionism, etc., although certainly relevant, is not permitted on Wikipedia.

15) I have learned that, truth is not a defense nor even a reasonable argument on Wikipedia.

16) Wikipedia will allow itself to be no better than the mainstream media and will ultimately, on political issues, suffer the same lack of public credibility.

17) Leaving the grand lie of institutional world politics aside, Wikipedia is a good resource and an interesting place to visit.---Bloblaw 07:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the second half of number 17! Babajobu 07:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey bloblaw, in the real world, when you tell someone theyre controlled by the "zionist media" do you usually expect them to be nice to you? Just wondering :)--Urthogie 08:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hungary was Germany's ally and they never touched any Jews. In mid 1944 the Hungarians declared nuetrality.Hungary in WW2

Not quite right. They tried to declare neutrality and got occupied by Germans without putting up a fight. Nor is it true that the arrow cross "never touched any jews" prior to the occupation, though things definitely got worse after. From your link: "Hungary: Joined with Germany in the attack on the Soviet Union. Attempts to conclude peace with the latter in 1944 foiled by the German occupation of the country and the setting up of a puppet regime that fought alongside the Germans until the closing weeks of the war." Dsol 16:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please keep discussion on topic

In accordance with WP policy, please restrict yourselves to comments that are directly relevant to the Budapest page. This is not the place to discusss the general successes and failures of WP and its policies. Those discussion belong on user pages or at the village pump. Future off topic discussion will be removed. Thank you Dsol 10:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pest etymology

The word Pest (or Peshta) is thought to originate from the Bolgar language, (a Turkic language, not related to modern Bulgarian, which is a Slavic language) because at the time of the reign of the Bulgarian Khan Krum, the town was under Bulgar Turk dominion.

Any evidence for this? The Pest, Hungary article says it's Slavic, which is indeed more likely to me, as there's a Slavic word pesht meaning furnace, and the form that has been retained even shows a Bulgarian reflex of the proto-Slavic *tj and *dj (the word's form is peć in Serbo-Croatian, for example), which matches with the fact that there was Slavic population in the area and this part of the modern city was under Bulgarian dominion for a period in the Middle Ages.

→ Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 14:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A peculiar fact is that Buda, the other part of the city, is historically called Ofen in German, and Ofen means oven or furnace... now could that be a translation of a Slavic name for the other part of town and why it's used for this part, I don't know. But seems highly unlikely to be a coincidence, as strange as it is.

→ Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 15:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense that they both have parallel etymologies, presumably relating to metallurgical activity. - Jmabel | Talk 03:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source for improving the article (and/or its subordinate pages)

Budapest Tourism Office used to have a comprehensive, useful and excellent website until about half a year ago, which has unfortunately been replaced by a new and quite poor site. Yet, the text content of the old site is still available through Internet Archive. If someone should feel like improving the article, they can do so from the source below:

Sights of Budapest

Adam78 23:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Someone should mention that Budapest is known for its many bath houses. (Budapestonline 12:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

Feel free. Yes, they are notable enough to merit mention, some of them (like the Gellart) by name. - Jmabel | Talk 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 0.5 nom

This article was nominated for Wikipedia:Version 0.5 I failed this article because it has no references, extreme collection of linkfarms, short lead, barely any prose in the article, mostly lists, unnessarry image gallery. Article needs some help. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comparing this article with a similar one for Bucharest, it would seem that would be the way to go.--Starquin 12:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 --172.128.121.7 03:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think an article on Budapest needs to contain a passage on Mindazenty's anti-Semitic bigotry, though it was doubtless real enough. - Jmabel | Talk 07:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complement EU

On December 16, 2004, The World Factbook, a publication of the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) added an entry for the European Union. [3] According to the CIA, the European Union was added because the EU "continues to accrue more nation-like characteristics for itself". Their reasoning was explained in this small statement in the introduction:

The evolution of the European Union (EU) from a regional economic agreement among six neighboring states in 1951 to today's supranational organization of 25 countries across the European continent stands as an unprecedented phenomenon in the annals of history... ... for such a large number of nation-states to cede some of their sovereignty to an overarching entity is truly unique... ... the EU ... has many of the attributes associated with independent nations: its own flag, anthem, founding date, and currency, as well as an incipient common foreign and security policy in its dealings with other nations. In the future, many of these nation-like characteristics are likely to be expanded. Thus, inclusion of basic intelligence on the EU has been deemed appropriate as a new, separate entity in The World Factbook. However, because of the EU's special status, this description is placed after the regular country entries.

I might add that EU citizens have EU- numberplates, -passports, drivinglicense, the EU institutions, and regular election. I hope you support the small extension I made... all the best Lear 21 18:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Restaurant Guide

i have enterd a link to the only Hungarian restaurant guide online with full english discription, I know it might look as a promotion but this is a service that most tourists look for and this is a real service for them. just wait and see how many clicks are going to be on that link, its very hard to find a good restaurant in Budapest without using this site.

I have removed the link - it would be more suited to a travel guide rather than an encyclopedia entry on Budapest Twigletmac 15:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand. But dont you think this link is needed? why do we have links to the tourists office, for the tourists (that is the name of the links title), there is nothing more important for tourusts than to know where to eat in.

You should have a read of WP:EL - does this link meet all of the guidelines for an external link? Note how the Tourist Office is linked because it is an official site for the city. - Twigletmac 18:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on castle hill

It would be nice to include more information on the castle hill, especially the extensive labyrinth system under it which is quite unique to the city. I have some photos here http://dheera.net/photos/thumb.php?q=europe2005/budapest and might consider writing about them at some point unless someone here is more knowledgeable about this. Dheerav2 18:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HÉV

it's operated by BKV not MAV as the article says

Then, correct it. --Cserlajos ^(talk) ^(contribs) 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Article, or a Gallery?

This is the question. The section "Tourism" is now a long gallery of truly beautiful images, but. Shouldn't these pictures be moved to a separate article? I think its not okay now: this is an encyclopedia, not Flickr. Any opposition, suggestion? --Cserlajos ^(talk) ^(contribs) 17:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Universities

Some information on Universities and Education in Budapest would be usefull and helpfull. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.182.216.255 (talk) 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Source ctiations

It would be wonderful if someone who had local access to resources could find source citations for the key information in this article. I have created a references section that will display any references includes using the guidelines in WP:FOOT. Alan.ca 07:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/u/d/Talk%7EBudapest_6e37.html"