Talk:Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hungary is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

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

[edit] 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On the the subject of the responsibility of the Horthy Regime for the events of the Hungarian Holocaust, there is an unpublished article on the topic posted at mypage.iu.edu/~jschelbl/responsibility/ (no http:// or www) titled: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 Wikipedia article on Hungary. 156.56.142.82 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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/wiki/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/wiki/B%C3%A9la_Bart%C3%B3k

And Zoltan Kodaly:

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

Thank you!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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) —The preceding unsigned comment was 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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greier (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC).

Romania didn't win WW2, they just switched sides and sided with the winners towards the end, sound familiar? It should, they did it back in WWI, that's how they got a third of Hungary from the French through the Treaty of Trianon! Madzyzome 05:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Romania wasn't the good, peaceful, faithful ally. They were flip-flopping, playing against both sides at times. This is because they've had the same irredentist purpose as Hungary's: they wanted to create Greater Romania. 1. They've sided with Hitler to get back some of the Moldovan territories annexed by the Soviets after the first war. When that was complete, they've switched sides to get Transylvania, which Hitler awarded during the second Wienna award, I believe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RadonX (talk • contribs) 04:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC).

Transylvania was taken away from Hungary and given to Romania by the Treaty of Trianon after WWI. The Second Vienna Award was when Hitler gave Hungary back a small portion of Transylavnia to Hungary. Hungary had no choice but to ally with Hitler because of their superior Military. In fact Miklós Horthy, the regent of Hungary, went against Hitler when he found out what the Nazi's were doing to the Jews they deported and set up a secret meeting between himself and the allies. When Hitler found out about this he put Miklós Horthy on house arrest in Austria and put in a puppet replacement. Hungary just wanted the 2/3 of its territory back that it lost during WWI. It makes no sense, to me at least, that Romania switched sides at literally the last possible moment and the allies accepted them with open arms, which is not unlike a serial killer finding Jesus on death row, it is unfortunate that, even today, this kind of behavior is encouraged by both people and governments alike (remember former congressman Mark Foley? "it was the alcohol").Madzyzome 05:31, 26 December 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)

[edit] "Hiding" in comments...

Re [1] - 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Belgrade Glendenning (talk • contribs) 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[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. --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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] 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 [2] 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: [3] (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: [4] (more properly, [5]) 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)

There are quite a few Jews, Chinese, and Americans living in Hungary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.90 (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] The date is 1918/1919

Perhaps some other examples from Wikipedia 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 ^{hey, yo! :-)} 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 ^{hey, yo! :-)} 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 ^{hey, yo! :-)} 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 ^{hey, yo! :-)} 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 ^{hey, yo! :-)} 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 ^{hey, yo! :-)} 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)

You reallly want me to link stuff from 1000 to 1918? :) go to the library. I gave you one book above, just click on it's ISBN code. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Vince, leave Tankred alone. I know he annoys us sometimes :), but on this issue he is absolutely right. What should be written in the infobox is the official date of diplomatic recognition of Hungary as an independent nation, not when it was originally founded or when it was "sort of independent". It should be perfectly clear in the History of Hungary section that we've been around in one form or another since 896 or 1000 or whenever. :) K. Lástocska 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

this date would be 23 oct. 1989., since Hungary was not independent untill that day. This is why Tankred's comment is false, and why I disagree with you abt this, here :) In fact Hungary is not independent since may 1, 2004, when she joined the EU. Tankred is mixing international laws, with other stuff. Since international laws, relations, and literally learly anything wich starts with "international-", in this case, I'm at home field. Tomorrow, I'll bring all what is needed, but I above what I already brought here, wich denied Tankred's examples, and proved, that T was wrong. And he"s still.--Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 00:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, of course we're still independent! I'm not a wild fan of the EU either but it doesn't mean we are no longer an independent country. And I still agree with Tankred. :) K. Lástocska 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And I agree with K. Lástocska:-) The EU is a supranational entity, not a confederation. Hungary is an independent state and it remains in the lists of independent states that I cited. And I never ever said that Hungary gained independence in 1989! This discussion has become really ridiculous and I regret that I have joined it. I thought I could help because of my specialization, but it seems there is little room for expertise in Wikipedia. I am sorry that my comments have been misunderstood. I do not deny the long history of Hungary (which Slovaks shared for a while - and I am partially of Slovak descent), but there is no reason to pretend that Hungary has been continuously independent since 896. It is a beautiful country with an amazing history regardless of whether it was an independent state in the 19th century or not. It is a pity that legal and scientific arguments are mixed with emotions here. Tankred 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is ridicuolus. I wont confute yr comments word after word, since it is needless, you proved many times how few you know abt things. I give only the "The EU is a supranational entity, not a confederation" line's confute. See: confederation#International organisations. All yr lines are false as this above. Belive me, all the other things you wrote here are false. Or at least, just read the second line of European Union's article. You simply does not know, what are you talking about, sorry. (This is a statement, proved here, and many times before)

This is really ridicuolus, that I've to deal with yr ignorance and unknowing time to time, wich you also mix with a huge amount of personal feelings and nonsense and an annoyingly huge and hard bull-head. Since by profession I'm an expert of this field, and many similar and semi-similar fields not like you, Tankred, who does this only as a hobby, sometimes in a very neglective way, as seen above, and may times before. :-) --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I must print out your last comment and put on the message board in my office. I am sure my colleagues will appreciate that someone finally discovered that the EU is not a supranational entity of a new kind, but an old good confederation:-) You can make derogatory comments about my qualification. I do not mind because I decided not to use my real name on Wikipedia. But it is a bit funny that you also challenge all those experts behind the Correlates of War database (and other lists of independent states). If your bombastic statement "I'm an expert of this field, and many similar and semi-similar fields" is true, perhaps you can submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal about the flaws in numerous works citing CoW. Peer-reviewed journals are a better place for original research than Wikipedia. Tankred 01:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Do it. It will be a wonderful proof of yr ignorance. Then read after. Anyway, who stated that the EU is an "an old good confederation". I stated that it is a confederation, simply because it is a confederation. I did not stated what kind of, (aka what type) so I definietly not said that it is "an old good confederation". But a confederation. Go, see European Union or confederation#International organisations. By reading yr comment above, I'll no wonder again when you'll state greens. Since you ignored other orgs, when I gave them as sources in other cases, let me dispute yr one: I still does not see, why a war-researching organization is relevant abt a state's independence. Nevertheless, I also did not disputed that Hungary was semi-independent. I stated, and proved (proving), the fact, that de jure it was at least semi-independent since 1000. You simply do not understand, that we are not talking abt the same thing. I say the de jure date, but you say the de facto date, wich is also can be seen as false. And laws overwrite facts, no matter how silly/ridicuolus is this (and I share this view too) no matter if it is in reality does not stand or whatever. I never acted from personal feelings, this is the reality. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

See? No matter if the EU is de facto not a confederacy, de jure it is, and law overwrites reality, and in a lexicon also. Sorry. I quit for today, this was more than enough from you, thanks for entertaining me in these late hours :DDD --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You also do not know the definition of confederation, I guess, so I also suggest you to read the article about confederation --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 02:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Before you return, perhaps you can read Constitutive theory of statehood and Declarative theory of statehood. You do not need to open any handbook of international law to see that Hungary gained its independence in 1918/19. It is perfectly sufficient to check two articles on Wikipedia. I asked you to provide any evidence that the official lists of states cited by me are wrong. Such evidence would be a proof that Hungary (not Austria-Hungary) has maintained official diplomatic relations with other states before 1918 (say in the 19th century if you think it is too difficult to cover the whole period 896-2006 that you originally picked up) and that it was recognized as an independent state by other states. If your claim is true, it must be easy to find the official recognition documents issued by France, Britain, Prussia, and Russia at least. As for CoW, it is not an organization, but the main database developed, cross-checked, and used by the community of international relations scholars. As for your reference to the Worldfactbook, I have already quoted their definition ("...not represent 'independence' in the strict sense, but rather some significant nationhood event..."), so I do not understand why you still stick with it. Tankred 02:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Hungary's continuity (or Hungarian Nation)

ajjajjajj, independence when? you will never resolve when exactly Hungary won and lost and partially regained and lost again its independence. how long is a piece of string? This ones tied into a Gordian knot - so pick up Árpád's sword - "founded 896" (1000 AD also acceptable) and move on....István 05:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I got sort of lost back there--another problem I realized was that the infobox refers to the "Republic of Hungary", and THAT sure hasn't been around since 1918. Maybe we could list several dates in there, I'm always for a diplomatic solution. K. Lástocska 06:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Arrrgh, except I can't figure out how to format an infobox. For whoever can do that sort of thing, I suggest: Foundation, 896. Independence from Austria-Hungary, 1918. Establishment of current Republic of Hungary, 1989. I was going to suggest something like that earlier but I got all confused. :) K. Lástocska 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Other long-existing European states mention their foundation date and their current constitution like Poland or Germany. In the case of Hungary this is 1000 and 1989. Independence is meant for countries created mainly in the 20th century, not for the long established states of Europe. The symbolic meaning of 1918 in Hungarian psyche is not "independence" but the dismemberment of the Kingdom of Hungary. There is no such tradition as 1918 being the foundation date of Hungary. I'm pretty sure that those who try to impose this date are moved by exactly this motivation: to break the continuity of Hungarian history, and create a new country, the successor state of itself. Zello 07:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone. While I agree with Zello that 1918 has pretty negative connotations for Hungarians, I also agree that it is nevertheless the date that best fits the definition "independence date of Hungary". But I think the main problem here is not really whether 1918 is the correct date of independence but rather the fact that it is by far not the most important date to mention about Hungary. So we should just have some other entry like "Established" or whatever is customary in these infoboxes (and if nothing, I suggest that we raise the point on the infobox talkpage). And a minor point for Zello: the first version of the current constitution was created in 1949, it was only revised in 1989 (see the top of this page and the text of the preamble) – and I suppose 1949 is in no way a better date for Hungarians than 1918 :) KissL 08:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

So like I said, we should list 896, 1918, AND 1989? (This KL agrees with the other KL...) :) It makes the most sense to me--and Zello, I don't really think there is any conspiracy involved this time. :) K. Lástocska 14:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the root of the issue is (common) confusion between the nation and its government. The article is about Hungary (the nation) yet the infobox is titled "Magyar Köztársaság" (the Government/State) yet the information in it, as in the article, is certainly about Hungary the Nation. As the two are not identical, the applicable date of origin is either 896 or 1000 AD. Before 896 one cannot say that "Hungary" existed (unlike "Hungarians") yet Hungary certainly existed before 1867, 1918, 1949, 1989, etc. etc. As for the Government? These come and go and the present one has very little significance in comparison with over 1000 years of history, especially not in an article about the nation. Zello's solution is the best one offered, and I would subjugate "Magyar Köztársaság" from title to line-item in the infobox. István 14:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, that is exactly what's been confusing me this whole time...sorry for all my back-and-forth and wobbly opinions but I've been pretty stressed in the real world so I'm not thinking as clearly as I should. :) The title of the infobox then should just be "Hungary", I understand that and agree, but where should we put "Magyar Köztársaság" ? K. Lástocska 14:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This issue is evidently controversial only in Wikipedia. The nation of Hungarians certainly existed in 1855. The independent Hungarian state did not because the statehood is defined by the capacity of maintaining relations with other states (i.e. control over foreign policy and military) and by the official recognition of the independence by other powers. It is very simple. I thought the Hungarian people article is about the Hungarian nation and this article is about their nation-state. A state cannot be independent and part of another state in the same time. And no one in the real world, outside this talk page, doubts that Hungary was part of another state in 1855. But it seems only few people care about what is true here (namely K. Lástocska, KissL, Avaring) and rational arguments are countered by petty clannish feelings (Zello's "symbolic meaning of 1918 in Hungarian psyche"). I am going to disengage from this dispute, I got enough harassment yesterday. But the rule of a mob ignoring basic concepts and mocking academic references is exactly the reason why Wikipedia is so often criticized in the media. Tankred 16:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm disengaging too, at least for now, since I'm confused out of my mind. :) Either pick up Árpád's sword or sign the treaty, be done with it, and next issue please! This has gotten really out of hand. K. Lástocska 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Its the nation, not the state and not the ethnic group. Hungarian people by its own account covers not only the ethnic group before the conquest, but also allied ethnic groups (Huns, Avar, Turkic) both in the Carpathian basin and outside AND members of other ethnic groups within the historical Kingdom of Hungary (yet another state). Its also not about Hungarians abroad (see Magyarab). The article is not about the people or government alone but the nation as a whole: Hungarians, Hungary, Hungarian Government are not identical. This article is about Hungary. Hungary was founded when the Magyars settled the Carpathian basin in 896, and/or at Papal recognition in 1000 AD - take your pick. This is what the article describes, and the textbox should reflect it. István 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Poland, Serbia and Croatia mentions the date of their foundation in the infoboxes, although indpendence has a lot more meaning in their case than in Hungary. As for diplomatic relations - legally every country had diplomatic relations with Hungary who had with Austria-Hungary as foreign policy was one of the common affairs. The first foreign minister of the dual monarchy was a Hungarian... Zello 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hungary or the Kingdom of Hungary was never annexed since its establishment, only partially connected to other states, there is no such date as independence in the History of Hungary, nor a "independence day", as in most of the countries.

1918 was the date when Austria-Hungary was forcibly disintegrated/dissolved. It's embarassing to read that Hungary got independent from Austria-Hungary aka partially got independent from itself. I suggest to look at Czech Republic. The same event (splitting of a former country - Czechoslovakia into Czech Republic and Slovakia) is called Dissolution of Czechoslovakia, not independence from Czechoslovakia. I suggest to use the same form here also, since the date was the dissolution of Austria-Hungary, or not? Btw, correct me if I'm wrong - but not in the Tankred kind-of-way :) - that the word independece is more or less equivalent with the word foundation. In fact, they are sinonyms, when talking about countries. Looking at Serbia, it was founded in 1878 and never got independent, despite the fact, that it was part of the kingdom of SCS, then kingdom of Yugoslavia, then Yugoslavia, then small Yugoslavia, then Serbia & Montenegro, then Serbia and Crna Gora, then now Serbia again, as it was before 1918. Or Serbia got independent last time in 2006 when Montenegro voted for its own independence? No. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 16:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, precisely - so many English-speakers live in former colonies which instinctively equate their national "foundation" with "independence". This does not work with Hungary, and as such "independence" is misleading and should be removed altogether. No line at all is better than a misleading one. "Foundation 896 AD" and "Date of present republic..." and nothing else is my favoured solution. Also the title on the top should read simply "Hungary / Magyarország" as this article is not about the present iteration of the Hungarian Government. István 17:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to throw flames on the fire, but where did the 896 foundation date in the infobox come from? It doesn't mention that in the article --AW 18:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Good catch - That's rather important! ...Ive amended the text to be specific. 896 is the traditional date of the conquest (the millenium was celebrated in 1896) when the Hungarian tribes occupied their present location in the Carpathian basin. István 20:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Infobox changed--it now refers to Hungary, the nation, not the current Republic of Hungary, the state. I think a new article specifically about said Republic of Hungary should be created to clear up confusion--I noticed that "Republic of Hungary" just redirects to "Hungary" and I'm not sure that's either entirely accurate or very clear. :) K. Lástocska 20:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to link this in for Tankred: The Library of Congress >> Especially for Researchers >> Research Centers >> Hungary - hope you won't call this again POV or nationalist or whatsoever. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 12:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you and Tankred sign a peace treaty of your own already? :) K. Lástocska 15:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like a good history resource though, thanks for the link. K. Lástocska 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

VinceB, when you use a document as a reference supporting your POV, please say clearly which part you found relevant. Let me quote from the country profile, which you mentioned: "[In 1700-1867] Vienna assumes control of Hungary's foreign affairs, defense, and tariffs, and it treats Transylvania as separate from Hungary... The Hungarians declare independence in April 1849, but with the help of Russian troops the Habsburgs reimpose control. Franz Joseph (1848-1916) revokes the Hungarian constitution and assumes absolute power." Well, this suggests that Hungary was not and independent state in say 1847 or 1850. Right? Tankred 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enter the Khazars...

It looks better now. I'm only conserned about the Hungarian Settlement date (896). This date has nothing to do with the Hungarian statehood. The Khazar state system wasn't replaced with a new one overnight :) Right? So I think 850-880 is more suitable here. The date when the Magyars achieved independence from the Khazars. BTW this state system was imposed also by Khazars around 850 ...--fz22 16:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Khazar Empire was a typical Eurasian nomadic empire, not a real state. And it is even more problematic to call the Magyar tribes after they freed themselves from the Khazar domination a state. Again, it contradicts the definition of the statehood. Otherwise, we can call thousands of African tribes "states". Wikipedia should respect the existing classification of political units. But, even if you call those entities a state, it is somewhat strange that an infobox in the article about the country of Hungary should describe a loose tribal confederation existing during the Dark Ages in the steppes of Ukraine. Tankred 04:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. Those tribes have no tax system, and administration. According to Kristo: Saint Stephen converted the Magyars to Christianity and subsequently established the second Hungarian state c. 997 on the ruines of the first which was borrowed from the Khazars. Read this: http://www.historia.hu/archivum/2001/010506kristo.htm --fz22 10:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

...*groan*....I'm beginning to think we should just paste some links to a few history reference websites into the infobox, with the caption "Figure it out for yourself!" K. Lástocska 05:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Eastern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Eastern Europe whose scope would include Hungary. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Flag

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=008&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3APIC&viewitem=&item=180068886484&rd=1&rd=1#ebayphotohosting

Is the flag supposed to have that leaf stuff? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.90 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, it's a new one on me. I have seen plenty of flags that have the coat of arms in the center, but I've never seen it with the "leaf stuff". On the other hand, I don't live in Hungary, so maybe I've just missed it. K. Lástocska 22:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I researched it a little and it turns out that it's a wreath and I found sources outside this seller that use the Coat of Arms with the wreath. Anyway the coat of arms alone on the flag isn't standard so might as well add the wreath. So I'll probably buy it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.90 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

And do fly it proudly. ;-) K. Lástocska 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photo Gallery

Its very nice, very encylclopaedic when you consider one of the primary uses of this page is for foreigners to plan vacation ahead of travelling - pretty pictures of castles never hurt when you are tempting Japanese Americans and Aussies to stop in Hungary on their European tour... but it is very large, focuses on architecture (not necessarily bad) and has lots of "overhead" - the challenge here is to present it properly in the article.
Also, the pictures are very well done - good shots, plenty of resolution. It seems all are from the same person?? Very nice indeed. Does anyone have an idea of how best to present these in the article? Separate "photogallery" page with summary shots on the mainspace? István 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the gallery should be moved to Commons and only linked from here. Of course great inline pics can be very nice, but this is simply too much. -- nyenyec ☎ 22:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Arguably, the most beautiful man-made sight in the world is the view of Buda from Pest at night. If anyone could find a free-use shot which is as high-quality as these, then that should be featured - and quite prominently. I agree - a "Photo Gallery" of Hungary (I dont think its unfair to assist potential tourists in their research) prominently linked would be a good approach. István 14:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

[edit] George Demeny

Just stumbled on this while randomly timewasting at work: George_Demeny

I think it might be a hoax. The list of references is impressive but I don't think any of them refer to Demeny, while at least some of the text has been plagiarised from here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB76/index2.htm

There's also no obvious Google results for anyone called George Demeny in the Revolt, which seems strange if he really was a top commander. Maybe someone who knows the history of this in detail should check it out?

cheers, Moyabrit 00:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)