Talk:Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hungary was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: December 9, 2007

	Hungary Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Hungary. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Comments: Edit Comments Page This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria: 1. Well written?: NO WAY. List of the administrative divisions and of the public hollydays should not be on the main page of a country. Introduction is way too long. History might not be too long, but it is obviously overrepresented in the article (i.e. this article is not entitled History of Hungary). 2. Factually accurate?: It is GROSSLY underreferenced. There a lot of places where there is one reference for an entire subsection. I guess means it fails to be factually acurate 3. Broad in coverage?: There is nothing about education. Economy section barely gives some information (come on, it is a member of EU, it must have something relevant) 4. Neutral point of view?: 5. Article stability? 6. Images?: the article almost abuses the use of images. The images should be relevant more than a little to the subsection. Please check other articles on countries that are allready a GA. When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.--[User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hungary is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

[edit] Rongálás

17:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC) Valaki egy nagy halálfejes képet rakott be az oldal elejére,mellé odaírta, hogy merry christmas ,most vettem észre, szerencsére pont most ki is lett javítva.Ezek ellen nem lehet tenni semmit?

Csak azt, h kijavítod :) Zello (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (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)

[edit] WikiProject Hungary discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

Description 

an expansion of the now-inactive and very small-scoped Wikipedia:WikiProject Historical Hungarian counties, using the original framework but expanding to include other things in this populous and unique European nation. There is an existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungarian culture, the national project would seek to cover other topics-politics, biography, flora and fauna... Chris 08:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

This article would greatly benefit from better introduction. Please consider summarizing History and Politics sections into the lead if you have some knowledge of those issues. Thank you.--Pethr 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Independence again...

I've read most of the discussion above (except for the too small letters), and I think it would be best if we left out this whole Independence section. First, I don't even know how this section got into the infobox, since most countries were founded, not became independent. Second, right now the independence section in the infobox is not about independence at all, but about changes in the name of the state (államforma – couldn't find the English counterpart to this expression).

• 896, I guess, was supposed to be the year of the conquest of the area of present-day Hungary. In fact, it's impossible to assign only one year to this event. Based on astronomical calculations about the date of an eclipse that was mentioned in medieval sources 19th century astronomer Ferenc Lakits said that the conquest could not have been earlier than 891. He puts it between 894 and 898. Note that the area occupied was roughly the half of modern Hungary's area, and the western part of the country was still not fully occupied until 900. If we include this date, it should be either 900 or 894–900. The only reason why 896 is thought of as being the year of the conquest is that the millennium celebrations took place in 1896.
• The next date, the coronation of St. Stephen (which is in the old sources mentioned as having took place on the turn of 1000 and 1001, and the exact date is still debated...) is commonly called "the foundation of the state" and it could be accepted as that, but it's still not an independence date since the country has already been independent before that. It's hard to define what constituted as a state in medieval times, but if we define it as a nation living in a certain area with some kind of centralized government, then it was a state long before 1000, and Stephen's father Géza was a king in everything but name.
• 1918 is the first date which can be called an independence date but having only this one in the infobox would suggest Hungary has never been independent before.
• 1989 is completely irrelevant as an independence date. A state that has been independent since 1918 cannot become independent once more without losing its sovereign status first.

I think the best solution would be to remove the "Independence" section from the infobox, create a "Foundation" section, and, since we don't have any better dates, include 1000 as the commonly accepted foundation of the state (with explanations about it in the text of the article). – Alensha ^talk 15:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. Infoboxes should contain official data. The offical foundation date of Hungary is 1000 according to the decision of the Hungarian Parliament. 2000/I törv. see the text here: http://www.complex.hu/kzldat/t0000001.htm/t0000001.htm Zello 18:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know there is a law about it :) It's cool that you already changed the infobox, I thought we have to ask one of the template-making wizards since it looks terribly complicated. Thanks! – Alensha ^talk 23:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"...most countries were founded, not became independent." Alensha, where the heck were you when we were all kicking each other's teeth out over who-knows-what a few months ago? ;-) Your post is a perfect summary of all the issues and misconceptions that had us yelling like lunatics but with the uneasy feeling that a point was being missed somewhere. Köszönöm szépen! K. Lásztocska 23:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm more busy now in huwiki with Ancient Egypt-related stuff. Just found out about this debate accidentally a few days ago. :) – Alensha ^talk 22:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 20 millions magyars

There are 20 millions magyars worldwide.--Székhu 21:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transylvania

Shouldn't the history section say something directly about conflicting claims on, and possession of, Transylvania during the 20th Century, and describe Transylvania's pre-WWII ethnic composition? Sca 16:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right, however it's just an overview of the Hungarian history. I have another problem: II. Ferenc Rákóczi was born on the Felvidék (the name of the village is Borsi, the Rákóczi Mansion is being renovated right now) (what is the proper word for Felvidék in English?) and not in Transylvania. Someone who is competent, please correct it. [Coldfire]

Upper Hungary. Kope 08:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought about it, maybe Transylvania is okay because the origin of the family is substantially come from there. However, in the late 17. century, the family lost its Transylvanian territories and put its center to Upper Hungary. Just thought to mention because my eyes stuck on it. Have a nice day! [Coldfire]

[edit] Too many pictures, no need for gallery (here; maybe in Commons)

Section: Photos about the Hungarian countryside

Or is it only my opinion? --Cserlajos ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree absolutely – I told the user about it some time back and said so in an edit comment here too. Since there has been no reaction, I'll now remove the section. The images are inlined in this page anyway. KissL 08:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

"The leaving Romanian army pillaged the country: livestock, machinery and agricultural products were carried to Romania in hundreds of freight cars. [22][23] The estimated property damage of their activity was so much that the international peace conference in 1919 did not require Hungary to pay war redemption to Romania.[citation needed] On November 16, with the consent of Romanian forces, Horthy's army marched into Budapest. His government gradually restored security, stopped terror, and set up authorities, but thousands of sympathizers of the Károlyi and Kun regimes were imprisoned. Radical political movements were suppressed. In March, the parliament restored the Hungarian monarchy but postponed electing a king until civil disorder had subsided. Instead, Miklos Horthy was elected Regent and was empowered, among other things, to appoint Hungary's Prime Minister, veto legislation, convene or dissolve the parliament, and command the armed forces."

When lies like this one are published, where are the supporting documents? Is this fiction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.5.44.21 (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New European vector maps

You're invite to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 12:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Micro-regions?

Below the county (megye) level, there is another layer of administration known as "kistérség". Is the best english equivalent of this the "micro-region"? This is what I have been able to find most prevelent on English-translated megye websites. I wish to know because I will soon create an article about this layer, to include all of the proper maps. Thank you. Rarelibra 21:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the translation "micro-region" - I can't find a better one either. --Cserlajos ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Central Statistical Office of Hungary publishes its official yearly gazetteer in Hungarian and English. Thus English terminology of administrative division and units is well-defined.

See http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/eng/other/hnk2006/tartalom.html

CSO uses the term subregion rather than micro-region.

--peyerk 16:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hierarchy of administrative units - counties and subregions

Hungary has a multilevel administrative division. Some levels are more important than others, some levels are real functioning general purpose local governments, others are not. NUTS and LAU form a useful system to describe the hierarchy.

On NUTS 1 level there are 3 macro-regions. These are not administrative units in any sense, instead they are only for statistical purposes.

On NUTS 2 level there are 7 regions. These are not general-purpose administrative units but many national goverment agencies are organized on this basis just like regional development councils which are bilateral bodies of national and local governments.

On NUTS 3 level we have 20 units. 19 of them are counties and one is the capital city of Budapest. These are local governments with elected councils and functioning administration. This means Hungary is not divided into counties - only Hungary except Budapest is.

On LAU 1 level there are 168 subregions. Budapest is one of them and the counties are divided into 167. Thus we cannot say counties are divided into 168 subregions - in fact the country (i.e. counties and Budapest) is. Subregions are not general purpose local governments rather they are obligatory cooperation framework for local governments for some issues. They have no directly elected bodies nor officials but they have a representative body comprising mayors of municipalities and a president elected by this body.

--peyerk 12:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We can state that the counties are divided into 167 subregions, and Budapest is its own subregion. It isn't a matter of whether or not a local administrative unit has elected bodies or not (that is described in the article for that unit). The fact remains that underneath the counties are subregions... even Budapest is its own subregion as you pointed out to me earlier. Rarelibra 16:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes.

--peyerk 08:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heat Wave

It killed up to 500 people.

--Florentino floro 04:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hungary or Hungaria

Is the country called Hungaria or Hungary? Why would it called Hungary if all the other countries are called "ia" like Bulgaria, Nigeria, etc.?

That's the way it is, period. Rarelibra 15:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think that's absurd in English, look at German! Why Bulgarien (Bulgaria) and Libyen (Libya), but Ungarn (Hungary) and Lettland (Latvia), but Nigeria and Malaysia?? --Kuaichik 05:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, well, it's actually "Magyarország", but since no one but a Magyar can pronounce that, we let people say "Hungary." (it is "Hungaria" in some other languages.) And btw, Kuaichik, have you noticed how Deutschland always ends up with the most random names in other languages? "Germany" is far enough afield, but then there's "Nemetország", "Tyskland" (I believe that is Norwegian), "Allemagne"...eh what?! K. Lásztocska 14:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You think that is weird, you should see what I ate for dinner last night. :) Rarelibra 16:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes yes "all other countries are called "ia"" like France, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, United States, Italy, Spain, Turkey, etc. yes every country ends in "ia" it seems. You know you're in trouble when your best example is 'Nigeria' :) Hobartimus 06:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

But note that while the adjective for France is French, for Germany is German, for Japan it is Japanese, BUT for Hungary it is Hungarian!

But boys and ladies, let's be serious about this. Notice that if you type "Hungaria" in Wikipedia it will be redirected to "Hungary". But if you type "Germania" it will NOT be redirected to "Germany". There must be a reason in English grammar for calling "Magyarország", Hungary instead of Hungaria. Or some historical reason. This is an encyclopaedia, things should be explained here.

Maybe you should take into account why "Germania," as you said, "will NOT be redirected to 'Germany'." Germania was a part of the Roman Empire. There was no such thing as "Hungaria" at the time; Hungary was made up of parts of the provinces Pannonia and Dacia.

Country-related adjectives are generally irregular in European languages, no? --Kuaichik 06:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not simply to admit that Hungary is a wrong traslation? It could have easily be wrongly traslated years ago, and then taken for granted. Hm?

Why not stopping kiddish wasting of time, dear neversigning friend? Hm?

--peyerk 17:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - Peyerk is right, you are wasting time discussing something that is rather moot. The fact that it redirects is simply to ensure that misspellings/misgnomers, etc are redirected to the proper place. Why not argue about, say, why they decided to change the name from "New Amsterdam" to "New York"? Why not argue why we didn't grow up on Mars instead of Earth? It would be just as wasteful and amusing. Rarelibra 18:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well then, if nobody minds, I would like to post a reply. Hungary isn't a "wrong translation," no more than Germany is a "wrong translation" of Deutschland. Different languages may name countries quite differently, based on what their speakers perceive of the country. Often, when in doubt, speakers name a country using the most easily accessible foreign language. ("Germany," for instance, may come from Latin "Germania" because English-speakers thought of Germany as essentially former Germania, not as the "land" of the "Dutch"-speaking people...where "Dutch" has the older, more general meaning). --Kuaichik 05:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone does have an objection to me posting this reply, I will gladly remove it from here :) --Kuaichik 05:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blind reverts of User:Irishguy

This user is incapable of understanding that this article is huge enough. --Phone1010 11:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting content. IrishGuy ^talk 11:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The long template suggests splitting the article into sections, not deleting content. And it already is split into sections. Why doesn't Phone1010 discuss such major changes on the talk page? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The {{long}} template is badly worded at that point. Sections of long articles need to be split out of the article, as explained by the linked page.

If you look carefully at the history, you'll see that Phone1010 did not remove any of the prose but just merged consecutive paragraphs and removed headings in between. (I'm not saying that this was an improvement to the article, but it certainly is different from "removing content" and does deserve discussion before, or along with, a revert, even though Phone1010 should have started a discussion himself.)

Phone1010 violated WP:NPA (above) and WP:3RR, while IrishGuy violated WP:3RR and WP:BLOCK (because he blocked a user with whom he had a content dispute) and most likely also WP:BITE (depending on whether or not Phone1010 is a newcomer, which he certainly looks). I don't know who Phone1010 is, but I think administrators should know policies much better than this. KissL 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

World War I

Did somebody forget the section on WORLD WAR ONE? The grammar is terrible. Look at the following "In First World War Hungary was fighting on the side of Austria. Hungarian troops were fighting against Russians near Premsyl, in Caporetto, where they were thought to be very reliable and been on the forefront, also, Hungarians have pushed back Romanian forces from Transylvania. In 1918, by a notion of Wilson's pacifism, the army of Hungary was dismissed, leaving the country undefended."

That's the entire section. Could somebody with a fourth grade education or above please put BACK the section on Austria-Hungary's involvement in WWI, which was huge? That would be great, thanks.

[edit] Deletion discussion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hungarian Americans. Badagnani 18:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military of Hungary

someone forgot to add this page to main entry for Hungary --Mrg3105 08:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Economy Data

in the economy section the "cumulative foreign direct investment" part is wrong i believe it is listed at 23 billion but the CIA world factbook has it at totaling more than $60 billion since 1989

[edit] Cuisine

The cuisine bit is almost entirely copied from http://www.budapesthotels.com/touristguide/food.asp. Nagy Zsolt, a rep from the page wrote me: "You are most welcome to use the page. Regards, Zsolt". Gregorik (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Permission

Permission granted by budapesthotels.com rep to cite freely: "Persze, nyugodtan! Köszönettel: Nagy Zsolt" Gregorik (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Gregorik, a simple use permission is not sufficient to copy something to Wikipedia, because the GFDL licence that Wikipedia uses also allows users of Wikipedia (and their users, etc.) to reuse the same material, which may or may not correspond with the original owner's intentions. You need to specifically ask for a permission to release the material under the GFDL, explaining the above. (Feel free to send me an e-mail if you need further clarification.) KissL 10:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

This article can in no way be listed as a GA.

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 13, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: NO WAY. List of the administrative divisions and of the public hollydays should not be on the main page of a country. Introduction is way too long. History might not be too long, but it is obviously overrepresented in the article (i.e. this article is not entitled History of Hungary).

2. Factually accurate?: It is GROSSLY underreferenced. There a lot of places where there is one reference for an entire subsection. I guess means it fails to be factually acurate

3. Broad in coverage?: There is nothing about education. Economy section barely gives some information (come on, it is a member of EU, it must have something relevant)

4. Neutral point of view?:

5. Article stability?

6. Images?: the article almost abuses the use of images. The images should be relevant more than a little to the subsection.

Please check other articles on countries that are allready a GA.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Nergaal (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Points taken, though intro is obviously fine as it is, sorry. Gregorik (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A new thing

we know something... please research about it. I am turk.

We have turk tribes names...

İn these tribes list we can see magyars.Magyars are turk?Yes they are turk but they dont agree this thing because they are in european side and they are in europe parlement.Magyar tribe came to Europe with Europe Huns and conquer where magyars live now...They are %70-75 turks.Because they married with slavians.

This is mostly wrong. What do you mean by "turk"? Turkish? People of Turkey?

What do you mean by that statement that Hungarians do not admit being "turks" "because they are on the European side and in the Europe Parliament"? European side of what? We are in the CENTER of Europe, actually. And the nations send only representatives to the Europe Parliament. Maybe you mean that Hungary is a member of the European Union? So what? We never called ourselves "turks", did not do it before joining the EU, did not do it back in the previous centuries. What the heck are you talking about? Hungary has a centuries long history and scientific research results about our origins also go back to centuries -- how should this be influenced by a 4 year long membership of the EU? And, by the way, Hungary was always a part of Europe since its Kingdom foundation in AD 1000. We consider us as Europeans for more than 1000 years. No reason to consider us otherwise.

Some additional notes:

(1) Magyars were migrating and conquering the Carpathian Basin but they are not "turks" (whatever it is supposed to mean). There were emperors in contemporary Byzantium who wrote records about the migrating tribes, including Magyars and named them falsely "turks". It is a misnomer centuries old.

(2) Magyar tribes came into Europe MUCH LATER than Huns and despite the similarity of their horseriding-marauder lifestyle (and the similarity between the words "Hun" and "Hungary" etc.), they had nothing to do with Huns. Even we, today Hungarians are not calling ourselves neither "Huns" or alike, nor "turks". We are Magyars.

So please do not make it harder for foreigners to understand Hungarian history and ethnic derivation. For further reference, feel free to access Hungarian scientific resources, official historical studies. Wikipedia needs no fictional and speculative theories. Thanks. -= _Aquinca_ =-

We can look Germans...

In our tribe list a name like:Saka-İskit This tribe came to europe with magyars and europe huns.And they married whit germen people.And this time named:born of the germans...Germans are %45-50 turks.

We can look Bulgarians.

Bulgars came to europe and conquer where bulgaria is now.They do war with Byzantine empire.Yhey won one.And after they one lost.After they destroyed.Bulgars are in our turks tribe list. They are %60-65 turks.Because they married greeks and byzantines.

I think they dont agree this because they are on europe parlement and they dont want to lost their part of the europe parlement.But we know this.Bulgarians,Magyars and Germans are turk.

A note:When in 375 turks conquer another places they found america.And they conquer this continent.They change their names and They were:Aztecs,Mayas and İncas.We all see these in televisions.These are right.Chinese and Turk people are father of the other people except some people like:Britishes,Frenches and Spanishes,İtalians

I think this is so interesting:First world war these 4 turk country started the war and they were allies.Its interesting.

İf you are disagree me please send me messages...

                      toolga  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toolga (talk • contribs) 21:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 

[edit] Possible Hungary project

Anyone interested in a dedicated group, which is initially proposed to begin as a task force, dedicated to improving content relating to the nation of Hungary is more than welcome to indicate their interest at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Hungary work group. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea, because i believe this article and others related to hungary really need a help, so I would be more than happy to participate--Philip200291 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The purpose for this proposal is to basically create a group dedicated to Hungary which would also have separate assessments, and thus a separate "statistics" page which they could use to help determine which articles might merit the most focused energy, pretty much the same as any other WikiProject. The reasons why I proposed it as a task force of Europe are basically two:

• (1) There has been a lot of attention recently to the fact that some talk pages have far too many banners, and that the presence of all those banners is becoming a bit of a distraction. By consolidating in as a work group, although probably with the WikiProject Hungary name, if I can arrange the banner to permit that, using the same project banner, that question can be bypassed in this case. In fact, in the near future I'm going to try to persuade some of the other European nation WikiProjects whose banners don't include separate assessments to do the same thing. Of course, the members of the Europe Project would have to agree to the arrangement as well, but I doubt there will be many objections from them in this regard.
• (2) I'm guessing that the Hungary project would want to include in its scope all the articles relating to the history of Hungary, including a lot of articles related to the old Hungarian Empire, whose boundaries extended well beyond current Hungary. Unfortunately, politically, it might not be such a good idea to place the Hungary banner on an article about some territory which is sensitive about it's current national identity. However, I would think that the same reservations would not necessarily be had about placing a banner which more visibly says it is related to Europe, and only on the bottom, like with the Australian banner on Talk:Sydney, for example, indicates which "descendant" projects also deal with it. If that set up were used, then I think the "blow" of the Hungary tag might be reduced, and there should be fewer objections to its presence. John Carter (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The term Magyar - delete, keep or rewrite?

Someone (only IP address known, from Budapest) deleted the whole section about the term "Magyar", then user Milk's Favorite Cookie restored it. I was first surprised, but actually I agree with the deletion. I believe Magyar and Hungarian means exactly the same thing. What are the differences between the terms written in this article based on? No references are given. I might be wrong on believing the word Hungarian also refers to the ethnicity, not just the people living in a multi ethnic country Hungary once was. This dilemma (same word for citizenship and ethnicity) must be similar in other nation states. But if I am wrong, please give references. Zoli79 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Never mind IPs often delete portions of articles as vandalism. An outsider without knowledge of an area may assume that the reason for deletion is simple vandalism. The solution is to simply endorse the deletion by a revert so they no longer think it's an IP vandalism. Hobartimus (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I get that part, but the problem is, that I don't know whether the frequent usage of Magyar(s) here on WP is correct or not. For me this deletion served as an excuse to bring up the topic. I have an opinion on that, but that's far away from an official or scientific point of view. References would really be needed... Zoli79 (talk) 21:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not really correct but sometimes it's used. It's enough to know that Hungarian is correct. If you want to emphasize origins you say "ethnic Hungarian", the problem with magyar that it is a magyar word and English speaking people have enough trouble already with trying to place Hungary somewhere on the map etc. If you try to use 'magyar' in a sentence talking to an US citizen for example you will likely fail miserably. Hobartimus (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote that chapter, packing it with references. I hope it's OK in this form. If not, feel free to correct. Zoli79 (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's good but it's place is in a different article maybe Hungarians there is no need to discuss terms in a main country article at all. Use Hungarian normally, ethnic Hungarian when you want to say something specific that is the standard English usage. You asked for opinions to delete keep or rewrite I see that this is getting complicated with your rewrite so I'll cut it short and state my opinion delete. Hobartimus (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe before deleting it, we could discuss the matter. I spent some time on researching that matter, you know, and simply deleting it with no previous notice doesn't seem wright in my book...

As for your point: I think this is an important aspect, concerning the country, since it's the word describing its people. And if there's a controversy in English on that matter than it should be clarified. I don't think it was long enough, to bother the whole article. The other reason why I find it important to clarify these terms is that both of them are used in it, causing confusion. Zoli79 (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt it was a deletion but I didn't delete it actually, it's in the history if you want I can copy it to the Hungarians article right now it's a very easy process. You were the one that brought the whole issue up so you were the one asking for opinions but you just did a rewrite anyway after the original material was removed. You are right that these terms are used but the solution is not to give a long explanation to every term we use that's why we have other articles for god's sake, imagine if we write a long explanation on the terms Crown Kingdom Parlaiment Democracy Prime Minister etc etc etc they are all used in the article. I agree with you completely that currently both terms being used can cause issues the solution is to remove most of the uses that can cause problems with understanding and readability and unifiy standardize usage at least within the article. Hobartimus (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote that section instead of deleting it, because we did not come up with a solution on the question rewriting, or deletion. So I thought the best would be to keep the original structure, but clean up the content. I brought up the issue originally, because of the chapter's incorrect content, not because I felt the theme is irrelevant in its context.

Anyway, you may be right. If you have a good suggestion on where to fit it (e.g. Hungarian people), I'm willing to move it. As I wrote above, a part of me still suggests to keep it here, since it deals with a unique and important case regarding the country's inhabitants, which is just as important as its history or culture. There are many other topics that are dealt with in the general Hungary article and still have their own article. Zoli79 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you that as a temporary solution, move the section from the start of the History section to the end of the History section within the article. As you wrote it I don't want to do this re-ordering. This would be a thing to do until we clean up this article unify usage and the section can be moved to Hungarians. Hobartimus (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I moved it over there. Now that is a place it definitely does not belong, but I accept it as a temporary solution. This article definitely needs some clean up on the long run. :) Zoli79 (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three non indo european offical EU languages?

"The official language is Hungarian also known as Magyar, part of the Finno-Ugric family, thus one of the three official languages of the European Union that is not of Indo-European origin." Maltese, Hungarian, Finnish and Estonian are all non indo european, maltese is semetic, and the others are finno-urgic. That makes four. Unless I'm mistaken what the official languages are. If I'm correct please amend the article :). - järnspöken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.240.178 (talk) 09:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out! Zoli79 (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You are totally right...--Philip200291 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Budapestdailyreview.com - external link

Anonymus users (I guess the editors of budapestdailyreview.com) added an external link containing photos from Budapest [1]. I removed the link, then they put it back and now we are developing a nice revert war [2], [3], [4], [5].

I think the link should be removed because:

1. the photos only show Budapest, not the whole country,
2. the photos are not typical images from Hungary, they can mislead the reader who may think that this is what Hungary looks like.

Please write here your opinion on the subject. Also, please answer the obvious question, if the link should be included in the Budapest article (I think not, because reason #2). Thanks! --Hu:Totya (talk!) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? --Hu:Totya (talk!) 13:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite their being very good photos from an aesthetic POV, I would agree they are not proper for Hungary, nor Budapest to an unfamiliar reader. Not being an unfamiliar reader, however, I do recognize Bp in the photos - even get somewhat nostalgic - but that is not the same as introducing or describing the city to someone who has never been there before (descriptive yet not informative). It's like the airport signage dilemma - airport signage is installed by people who already know where everything is - it might be descriptive but does not help unfamiliar people find their way. We must write for unfamiliar people, and these photos don't speak to them in the same way. István (talk) 14:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please give your opinion about Proposal II which will define Central Europe

Give your support or opposition at the Central Europe talk page, since we are looking for a single definition for it. It's very important. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all that participated and gave their opinion on Proposal II.

Proposal II was approved, 13 editors supported it and 5 editors opposed it. Proposal II is now in effect and it redefined Central Europe. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)