Jump to content

Talk:Hungarian irredentism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

PANONIAN's Tyranny over this article

Grammar

Not even getting into the more complicated bias and reality of the situation, but just simple grammar fixes PANONIAN doesn't allow. It is clear this user does not have a suitable command of the English language, or he is so arrogant he would rather have his own broken English on this page than allow someone else to fix it. User:KPalicz

Wrong, mister KPalicz, we can analyze your edits here of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Hungary_%28political_concept%29&diff=84712368&oldid=82285657 Two things are evident from your edit: 1. you did not changed grammar but MEANING of that sentence, and 2. you blanked another sentence (I will discuss more about this below). PANONIAN (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

His language:

  • The post-Trianon Hungary had about half of the population less than the former Kingdom. The population on the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary that were not assigned to the post-Trianon Hungary was mainly non-Hungarian, although, it also included a sizable minority of ethnic Magyars. User:KPalicz

My corrected language:

  • The post-Trianon Hungary had less than half of the population of the former Kingdom. The population of the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary that were not assigned to the post-Trianon Hungary were mainly non-Hungarian, although, it also included a sizable minority of ethnic Magyars. User:KPalicz

My rationale:

  • PANONIAN's English grammar is simply wrong. This is an error and must be corrected. He has reverted my attempts to fix this half a dozen times and refuses to allow even simple grammar fixes. This is ridiculous. User:KPalicz

Answer: as I said above, mister KPalicz, you changed the meaning of the sentence. Let analyse both sentences:

  • 1. Original sentence: "The post-Trianon Hungary had about half of the population less than the former Kingdom."
  • 2. Your "corrected" sentence: "The post-Trianon Hungary had less than half of the population of the former Kingdom."

So, "your" sentence imply that post-Trianon Hungary is same country as former Kingdom and that it "lost" population. Thus, this sentence do not have same meaning as the previous sentence that say that these two are not same countries and compare their population. Conclusion: if the grammar in first sentence is not good, then please correct it, but without of changing of meaning of the sentence, ok? PANONIAN (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Scare Quotes

There is more substantial bias in this article, but again I'm not getting into it, but his unnecessary use of scare quotes is a clear example of bias. User:KPalicz

His language:

  • After the Treaty of Trianon, a political concept known as Hungarian revisionism became popular in Hungary. Hungarian revisionism claims that the Treaty of Trianon was an "injury" for the Hungarian people. Hungarian revisionists have created a nationalistic conception based on the "injustice" of the Treaty of Trianon with the political goal of the "restoration of borders of a thousand-year-old Hungary". User:KPalicz

My correction & rationale:

  • His language already says the following is a claim by "Hungarian revisionism" there is no need to add quotes around the terms "injury" or "injustice". This is improper useage of quotes with no other intention than to add additional anti-Hungarian bias to this article. This is politically motivated and once again is contrary to simple writing standards. I have made this fix half a dozen times and he reverts it everytime. User:KPalicz
If we do not use "injury" or "injustice" then we would imply that it indeed was injury and injustice, which is in fact wrong. And of course there is nothing anti-Hungarian here. On the contrary, usage of words injury and injustice is nationalistic propaganda that support creation of Greater Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It is redundant since you already state those are the claims of Hungarian revisionists. The article isn't making the claim, the "revisionists" are, so there is no implication that the article supports that view. Did they make that claim? Yes? Then you just need to state it simply without redundant and overly biased scare quotes.User:KPalicz
Fine, I changed these quotes now: instead of these words, the whole sentences are now in scare quotes. PANONIAN (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Erne Kis

His language:

  • (For example, Erne Kis, ethnic Hungarian and one of the leaders of the communist resistance movement in Vojvodina, was sentenced to death by a court in Szeged and executed). User:KPalicz

My correction & rationale:

  • Erne doesn't at all seem to be a significant figure worthy of inclusion in this article. There isn't a wikipedia entry on him and a Google search doesn't turn up anything of significance on him. Why he, and he alone is pointed out as an example here is beyond me. I have attempted to remove this reference from the article but once again, PANONIAN has reverted my edits with no explination. KPalicz 22:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, Erne Kis is an important historical figure. He is well known person and streets in many towns and villages in Vojvodina are named after him. The fact that there is no Wikipedia article about him does not mean much (there are no Wikipedia articles about many other known persons too). Why mention of him is important for this article? Because he was Hungarian and because he was anti-fascist. You mentioned above anti-Hungarian bias. Well, removing of Erne Kis from this article is quite anti-Hungarian. If you remove him, you create here an impresion that all Hungarians in WW2 were fascists, which is far from the truth. Many Hungarians were partisans and fought against Greater Hungarian fascist regime, thus they also were victims of that regime. It pretty much illustrate what kind of regime ruled Greater Hungary in WW2: to be accepted by the state, the citizen of that state had to be not only ethnic Hungarian, but also fascist, and those Hungarians who were not fascists were persecuted by the state. I am sorry, but it is truth about this state, no matter if you like it or not. PANONIAN (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
So then just say that Hungarian communists were also killed (and I believe you do) throwing out an example in this instance is inconsistent with the rest of the article where no examples are listed or needed. This article is just an overview, pointing out this one guy is unnecessary. User:KPalicz
It is an interesting information, and I see no reason why we should not include it. The fact that other parts of the article do not contain similar examples does not imply that we should delete this one too. Wikipedia should be free source of information, not a place for censorship. PANONIAN (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

I've tried to free this article from POV, but it still needs work. --Adam78 01:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic violence

However, hate crimes against members of the Hungarian diaspora as late as 2004 provided the EU with reason for concern about the protection of Hungarian minority in Serbia's Vojvodina.

  • I just want to write my comment about this. European investigators have visited Vojvodina recently and concluded that there is no ethnic violence in Vojvodina. There are some isolated cases of ethnic violence, and the victims of these isolated cases are mostly Hungarians, Croats and Serbs. So, both, ethnic Hungarians and Serbs attack people of another nationality. Of course, these are only acts of small number of aggressive individuals. There is no more ethnic violence in Vojvodina than in any other European country or region. Stories about ethnic violence in Vojvodina were mostly invented for election propaganda in Hungary. User:PANONIAN
    • PANONIAN = pack of lies of great Serbian idiology
      • A Greater Serbian ideology? Did I ever said that I support a Greater Serbia idea? No, I did not. What I said here is what European investigators concluded when they visited Vojvodina. Comparing this with recent events in France and Australia, Vojvodina is a very peaceful place. And by the way, since we discuss here about events in Vojvodina, and since Vojvodina is located inside Serbia, I do not see how Greater Serbia ideology could be related to events in Vojvodina, because Vojvodina is not "a foreign territory claimed by Serbia". There is no logic in your claims, dont you agree? PANONIAN (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Stories about ethnic violence in Vojvodina were mostly invented for election propaganda in Hungary."

It can hardly be the case, since it was dealt with by the best-selling Hungarian leftish daily Népszabadság, and the left-wing (MSZP) is often accused of having too little concern about Hungarians over the borders. If it had been invented only for election propaganda, it would have been propagated by the right side (considered more patriotic), the Fidesz.

It is not quite reasonable to say that a minority group can "mistreat" a majority group similarly as they are mistreated in a country which is actually ruled by the majority. As Bernd Posselt, a member of the EU factfinding committee said: he doesn't like such incidents whose victims are always the minorities.

The committee of the Vojvodina Parliament dealing with relations between nations found that out of the 178 nationality-related incidents in that region in 2003-2004, 82 (46%) was against Hungarians (and 19 against Croats, 15 against Serbs, 14 against Albanians and 12 against Romas).

Suppressing these cases may be a means to promote Serb pride and self-content, not especially one of the best means though. Settling these things in a proper and honest way would perhaps profit them more on the long run in their European reputation. As Jelko Kacin, another member of the committee, said: this region may be the litmus paper to measure whether Serbs really wants to join the EU or not. – So the above paragraph should be rather clarified than simply removed.

Adam78 30 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)

Ok, return the paragraph if you want, but also wrote this part that there were attacks against other ethnic groups (including attacks against Serbs). There are very similar attacks against minorities in other European countries (recently this happened in Holland and Italy), but it is very unique that majority nation in Vojvodina (Serbs) are also victims of attacks. You posted this about attacks:

  • 82 against Hungarians
  • 19 against Croats
  • 15 against Serbs
  • 14 against Albanians
  • 12 against Romas

We can post these numbers in the article. User:PANONIAN

Also, you cannot ignore that, besides real attacks, there was also some election propaganda, which wanted to show these attacks to look greater than they really were. User:PANONIAN

This article is outragingly biased. "Greater Hungary" had been in exisetence for 1000 years, ie. one can call it Hungary rather than the present day Hungary (ie. Central Hungary). The data concerning minorities in Hungary after the Vienna Awards are simply not true: these were the borders that really reflected the doctrine of Wilsonian self-governance. In addition, calling UMDR nearly revisionist is a lie. If UMDR - and Hungarians - were radical, Transylvania would be like Northern Ireland.

Further remarks: - what about atrocities against Hungarians in Vojdovida and Transylvania? - no territories were ceded to Yugoslavia after WWII, only to Slovakia (Rusovce and other 2 villages near Bratislava).

It is not correct that Greater Hungary existed 1000 years. Just read something about Royal Hungary, and you will see that it was not so big. I think that this article mainly speak about Greater Hungary in World War II, which have nothing to do with the former Kingdom of Hungary. As for atrocities in Vojvodina, if you want, we can write here much about atrocities committed by Hungarian soldiers in Vojvodina between 1941 and 1944 against the civilian population (mainly Serbs and Jews). If already the whole World speaks about Greater Serbia and Srebrenica, why the story about Greater Hungary should be a taboo? User:PANONIAN

User:HunTomy

This user constantly reverting this page, and I will elaborate here why his reverts are wrong:

1. He deleting the link to the Greater Hungary disambiguation page, which is important to be here.

2. He constantly write that "Greater Hungary means the territory of Hungary before 1920", but as Greater Hungary disambiguation page can show, there is already article about that subject, while this article speak only about Greater Hungary as irredentist political concept.

3. He deleting map of Austria-Hungary, which is important because the Kingdom of Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary. Instead of this map he posting some map of the Kingdom of Hungary with the explanation that his image is better. In fact, letters on his image can hardly be read, while the article already contain similar map of the Kingdom where the letters can be read easily.

4. He deleting that Greater Hungary is a political goal of Hungarin irredentists (which is by the way the subject of this article).

5. He changing the sentence that Habsburg Monarchy conquered the Ottoman territories of former Hungary into the word "reconquered". How can Habsburgs reconquer the land which never belonged to them?

6. He deleting the statement that Hungary was autonomous part of Austria-Hungary into the statement that it was "independent", which is a ridiculous.

7. He deleting the part about demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary and replacing this with the strange calculation (calculating together Hungarians and Austrians). This is ridiculous, since Hungarians and Austrians are not cognate peoples which could be calculated together in this manner (Hungarians are Finno-Ugric Uralians, while Austrians are Germanic Indo-Europeans).

8. He deleting the part which say that population of the parts of the former Kingdom of Hungary which were included into the new neighbouring countries had a non-Hungarian majority (and it is a historical fact).

9. He deleting the statement that 3,3 million Hungarians was located in the neighbouring countries. This is a historical fact. He also deleting the number of other nationalities which were located in the Hungary after Trianon Treaty.

10. He posting fascist posters and videos into article (The source of these videos is neo-fascist web site www.hvim.hu).

11. He changing the map of Hingary in 1941 with some suspicious propaganda map (His map create the impresion that Hungary in 1941 relieved, not enlarged).

12. He deleting the statement that WW2 Germany was a Nazi Germany.

PANONIAN (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer to PANONIAN - "User:HunTomy"

1. "He deleting the link to the Greater Hungary disambiguation page, which is important to be here."

I will look after.

2. "He constantly write that "Greater Hungary means the territory of Hungary before 1920", but as Greater Hungary disambiguation page can show, there is already article about that subject, while this article speak only about Greater Hungary as irredentist political concept."

But the irredentis concept takes that as one's starting point.

3. "He deleting map of Austria-Hungary, which is important because the Kingdom of Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary. Instead of this map he posting some map of the Kingdom of Hungary with the explanation that his image is better. In fact, letters on his image can hardly be read, while the article already contain similar map of the Kingdom where the letters can be read easily."

Hardly registered using a map which is used by the irredentists. Those map are about the Kingdom of Hungary not about the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Oh the letters of the map can be read easily, but there is nothing interesting on it. But if you want i will look for a bigger map.

4. "He deleting that Greater Hungary is a political goal of Hungarin irredentists (which is by the way the subject of this article)."

I think this is mentioned, but later. I will look after.

5. "He changing the sentence that Habsburg Monarchy conquered the Ottoman territories of former Hungary into the word "reconquered". How can Habsburgs reconquer the land which never belonged to them?"

The Habsburgs reconquered the land as the King of Hungary, and the land was reannexed to Hungary (and through it to the Habsburg Empire)

  • It was a political propaganda that they "reconquered the land as the Kings of Hungary". Fact is that they simply conquered these lands, and they legally treated these lands as "new conquered", not as "reconquered" (check this if you want, I read it in the book written by Hungarian historians). For Habsburgs, Hungary was nothing more than the name in their title (The emperor was a king of Hungary, but also a king of Croatia, Bohemia, Lombardy, Venice, even a king of Jerusalem. These titles means nothing. The fact that Habsburgs joined some of the new conquered lands to one of their provinces named Hungary also means nothing. They simply did not "reconquered" the lands. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

6. "He deleting the statement that Hungary was autonomous part of Austria-Hungary into the statement that it was "independent", which is a ridiculous."

Independent by internal affairs, so semi-independent. Autonomy is not the correct word for it, autonomous provinces aren't recognised as a country.

7. "He deleting the part about demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary and replacing this with the strange calculation (calculating together Hungarians and Austrians). This is ridiculous, since Hungarians and Austrians are not cognate peoples which could be calculated together in this manner (Hungarians are Finno-Ugric Uralians, while Austrians are Germanic Indo-Europeans)."

I mentioned that because the German minority of the Kingdom was enhance the country. Because of Austria-Hungary, Austrians are state nations too. So it's not a linguistic consideration but political. And by the way I mentioned apartly the numbers of Germans and Hungarians too.

  • Sorry, it were not only Austrians and Hungarians "a state nations". Serbs also were recognized as a nation as well as Croats. So, you cannot calculate only Austrians and Hungarians like this. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

8. "He deleting the part which say that population of the parts of the former Kingdom of Hungary which were included into the new neighbouring countries had a non-Hungarian majority (and it is a historical fact)."

And for example in Highland the Slovakians was in minorty... was it mentioned anywhere?

9. "He deleting the statement that 3,3 million Hungarians was located in the neighbouring countries. This is a historical fact. He also deleting the number of other nationalities which were located in the Hungary after Trianon Treaty."

And i replaced it with another approximation: the 1/3 of the Hungarian nation. The numbers of the non-Hungarian population isn't deleted, just corrected.

10. "He posting fascist posters and videos into article (The source of these videos is neo-fascist web site www.hvim.hu)."

I posted that poster to demonstrate an IRRENDENTIST poster. The video is not a politically motivated video, it's only a documentary film. HVIM is not fascist, but irrendentist. Look after the differences. And who cares where is the file uploaded? I didn't linked the site.

  • The proper manner to post external links is on the end of the article under the title "External links". These links should be connected with the subject of the article. These videos are not connected with the subject of the article, but only with one event mentioned apropos. Also, I do not buy the story that something what come from www.hvim.hu is not politicaly motivated. This article should only to speak about irredentist ideas, but not to support or justify them. Poster maybe could be included, but with different explanation for it. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

11. "He changing the map of Hingary in 1941 with some suspicious propaganda map (His map create the impresion that Hungary in 1941 relieved, not enlarged)."

It's not a proganda map. I think you are little bit paranoid. This map is useful to compare Great-Hungary, Trianon Hungary, and WWII Hungary and by the way: much detailed

  • Sorry, but it is clear that this map is written for propaganda purposes. The borders of Trianon Hungary are almost invisible, while the purpose of the map was obviously to show not that Hungary was enlarged during the war, but that it "did not reclaimed all of its territories". That is simply an irredentist propaganda. The article already contain a map of the old Kingdom of Hungary. The map of WW2 Hungary should represent Hungary during the war and before the war. What about another map of WW2 Hungary you uploaded? Maybe you can post this one instead. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

12. "He deleting the statement that WW2 Germany was a Nazi Germany."

I don't like when someones everywhere see Nazis. They are destroyed in 1945. I wanted to avoid emotional arguments about war crimes etc.

And why do you deleted the link to the Encyclopadia Britannica (1911)? Are the editors of it fascists too?

  • As I said the proper place for external links is the separate "External lins" title on the end of the article. Your external link is not connected with the subject. The link is not about irredentist political concept but about Kingdom of Hungary, and I saw that you already posted this link in the Kingdom of Hungary article. It simply do not belong here. PANONIAN (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Protected

The article is now protected. Please engage in a constructive dialog to describe the controvery around this subject in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. When you have arrived to consensus on how to proceed, make a request to unprotect at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


Well, ten days and not a peep. Unprotected. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Nationalist Thoughts - Not From the Hungarians

I think that article tries to describe that the "real" Hungary was founded in 1918. It's in error only for about 1000 years; and it provides much of false information about the old kingdom. Somewhere in it I read that " The new government of autonomous Hungary took the stance that Hungary should be a Magyar nation state, and that all other peoples living in Hungary—Germans, Jews, Romanians, Slovaks, Ruthenes, Serbs, and other ethnic minorities—should be assimilated." That autonomous Hungary -in reality- provided the following rights for nations living inside its borders:

  • The use of the mother tongue in offices of places where non-Magyars lived.
  • The right to found non-Magyar schools.
  • The goverment of Hungary freed the bondmans; Magyar, Slavic, Romanian and etc. too.
  • No any difference before the law.
  • Before the Treaty of Trianon, some Magyar politicians supported the "Eastern Switzerland" idea, a country completely based on the nations of it. The idea was rejected by all nation.

"The franchise was greatly restricted so as to keep power in the hands of the Magyars.":

  • In these times, the most of the Magyar people had no right to vote. There were no ethnic-based differences in it.
  • Remember the country's half-feudalist state! It's a big thing that some non-noble had right to vote in a state like this!

"Ethnic Hungarians inhabited parts of the occupied areas, but other areas were mainly inhabited by non-Hungarians, for example the population of Northern Transylvania was composed of 50.2% Romanians and 37.1% Hungarians." (WW2):

  • 52% of the population of N Transylvania was Hungarian according to indepedent sources. The remaining 48 percents was divided by Romanians, Germans, Romas, etc.
  • The Treaty of Trianon gave a lot of ethnically Magyar territories to other countries. This is a fact. It cut families into several parts. It's bad, "Vae victis" ideology caused revisionism, fascism, caused the Holocaust, caused nationalism, caused a big fall in the growth of the economy, caused sadness, caused some powerless, but indepedent states. I suppose that it's real purpose was mainly economic. Dictated by the Entente, mostly by France, without asking the Hungarian -Magyar- delegation. Based on false "facts" similuar to the upper. If the Entente don't make the peaces near Versailles as hard as this, we could say: "Fascism? Holocaust? Hitler? What are these??" - and we should live in a much better Europe.

" Establishment of Hungarian rule was followed by brutal war crimes against the local non-Hungarian population in some areas, such is Bačka, where Hungarian military killed several thousand civilians, mainly Serbs and Jews, but also Hungarians who did not colaborate with the new authorities."

  • They were killed by some disloyal officers. The regent of Hungary ordered the investigation, and the committers were liquidated.
  • The Hungarians died under the communist rule, in the frame of the revenge. The article means "communists" under the "new authorities"?

Based on these facts, I feel a very staunch Serbian/Romanian nationalist behind the article. Since Wikipedia's view is neutral, somebody could rewrite this article.

And -of course- I don't support the revision of any of the disputed territories. Today's way is the European Union, and nationalist-free politics. In every country. - posted by User:Cserlajos, May 4, 2006

Hello, I think you are giving a highly whitewashed presentation of the Hungarian system prior to 1918. You have some genuine points (there were a lot of Magyars outside the borders of Trianon Hungary, certainly), but a lot of the points seem to be along the lines of nationalist propaganda. I can't address all your specific points now, but the point about the franchise is particularly misleading. Indeed, it is true that most Hungarians, whether Magyar or not, could not vote. But it was widely known that there were a lot more Magyars who could vote than there were members of the minority populations (except the Croats and Germans). The parliamentary districts in the Slovak and Romanian areas of the kingdom were essentially rotten boroughs, with almost no voters and essentially represented by pro-government placeholders elected through corrupt means. While the franchise was limited everywhere, the seats in the more Magyar-dominated parts of the kingdom had considerably larger electorates. There were virtually no Romanian or Slovak representatives in parliament, and it is quite clear that Hungary's leaders rejected expansion of the suffrage for that very reason - in order to make sure that the minority ethnicities would not be represented. The idea that Hungary's suffrage was somehow advanced is absurd - even Austria had universal male suffrage by 1914. Hungary's highly restrictive franchise was increasingly seen as retrograde over the course of the period from 1867 to 1914. I'm also rather astonished that you deny the exitence of Magyarization. This is a widely accepted phenomenon by historians. It is true that the magyarization process was not incredibly brutal, and that various accommodations had to be made to the fact that there were large parts of Hungary where Magyar wasn't really spoken. Eliminating Slovak or Romanian primary schools would have been very difficult, for instance. But this was a concession to the practical limitations which a 19th century government faced in trying to convert the majority of its population to speaking a language that was completely unrelated to their native tongue. It didn't change the fact that assimilation was the ultimate goal of the government. john k 14:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, please post new material at the bottom of the talk page, and you can sign your name and date your post by typing in four tildes (~~~~). john k 14:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the present day independent Hungary was founded in 1918, and it was only its political predecessor, the Kingdom of Hungary, that was founded in 1000 AD. So, I do not see error here. Regarding the statement that "the new government of autonomous Hungary took the stance that Hungary should be a Magyar nation state, and that all other peoples living in Hungary should be assimilated", it is correct. I have very good books about Magyarization and it is simply not correct that non-Hungarian nations living in the Kingdom of Hungary had rights. The policy of the Hungarian government in that time was to assimilate them all and Hungarian politicians from that time even were proud because of that political aim they had. The use of mother tongue of non-Hungarians in the Kingdom was very restricted and the number of schools in other languages was very very small. Also regarding the voting, the Hungarians had more votes than it was their participation in population. Here is example: in 1913, Hungarians were 54.5% of population of proper Hungary and they had 60.2% of votes in the elections. Romanians were 16.1% of population and had 9.9% votes, Serbs were 2.2% of population and had 1.4% of votes, etc. Regarding the killings in Bačka in 1942, it is proven that Horthy Miklos know for that and approved these killings. The motive of the killings was to convince Hitler that Hungarian troops should to fight with "internal" enemy and that they should not be sent to Russian front. Therefor, the leaders of Hungary with the pretext that they fight with "Serbian chetniks" commited genocide against civilian Serb and Jewish population. So, it were not some "disloyal officers", but the order for that came from the highest place. PANONIAN (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Modern Hungary is a direct successor state to the old Kingdom of Hungary. There was a continuity of political power, with King Charles having appointed Karolyi as prime minister. and, indeed, the modern state of Hungary was known from 1920 to 1944 as the Kingdom of Hungary. I agree with your third sentence. In terms of the next sentence, I don't know that that follows - just because the official state policy was (eventual) magyarization, that doesn't mean that no rights were allowed to non-Magyars. The use of mother tongues of non-Magyars was restricted, but it was not forbidden. I agree that Hungarians had more votes than their percentage of the population. john k 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Dear John, "There were virtually no Romanian or Slovak representatives in parliament" I know about at least two of them which were members of the Országgyũlés and were slovaks. Ludevít Štúr and Kossuth Lajos (the latest decraling himself hungarian - as well as Petőfi Sándor, both were evidently of non-hungarian origin). MadarDeNemNaci 22:51, 29 August 2007

To the author

Dear Author,

I found this article very interesting, especially when I read the References. I had the feeling that this article is strongly based on and interprets Serbian literature - which would not be a problem if it was mentioned in the article headline.

This article was written by many different users, and I was the one who recently added some references to the article. It is bad that other people who worked on this article did not added their references too, but I hope that they will do it in the future. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it is an article written in English, some readers - contrary to those who leave in the Central Europen (CE) region - might have very little background info, so the political neutrality would be a desirable aim, or at least you should try to show the point from several aspects.

Since both, Hungarian and non-Hungarian editors worked on this article, I think that its current form could be seen as neutral. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me highlight some parts - it is your decision to consider whether you make any changes or not.

1. I have never heared about "pan-Magyar" ideology, and the meaning is a question for me, especially if comparing it to the well-known pan-Slavic or pan-Turk ideology. The latter ones' aim were to unite (not reunite) closely related nations, e.g. to create a state containing Russia as well as Bohemia. Since the Hungarian-speaking people are part of the Hungarian nation, and the differences between the Hungarian ethincities cannot be compared to that of between the Slavic or Turk nations, the term "pan-Magyar" is inaccurate and misleading. Naturally, the re-unification of the Hungarian nation is an existing aim of several political formations in Hungary and in the neighboring countries, but the tools used in most cases are far from political irredentism or revisionism. Would you call pan-Serbism when Serbia gives citizenship to Serbs who live e.g. in Croatia? I think you would not.

I do not know who wrote that word "pan-Magyar" there (you should ask the person who wrote that), but the Greater Hungary concept is not about that only. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The Greater Hungary concept is the concept to restore Hungary's pre-WWI borders. But the aim of Hungarian political parties and civilian movements (no matter they are in Hungary or in the neighboring countries) is to represent and protect the rights of Hungarian minorities and to help their development in their homeland without changing the borders - it is neither possible nor necessary. So it should be mentioned that the aim of ANY territorial restoration or revision is only declared by some political extremities; so it would show the position of the idea on today's Hungarian political "map". Timur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.48.130 (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Greater Hungary concept is not such important political option in Hungary, but the Internet is full of the websites created by these political extremities you mentioned. Therefor, the idea itself is widely spread (at least on Internet), no matter that there is no important political party in Hungary itself that support this idea. PANONIAN (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

2. "relatively moderate Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania". Everything is relative. If you compare it to other parties in Romania, you should call it simply "moderate".

3. "Habsburg" is written in English "Hapsburg". I don't have a clue why...

4. "uprising in Hungary in 1848–1849". It was a bit more than an uprising. It was a revolution, then it turned into a liberty war, which lasted more than a year and many of it's political and social achievements persisted after its defeating and defined the following half century.

5. "This was mainly non-Hungarian population, which lived within the Kingdom of Hungary before 1918". What is mainly? 99 or 60 percent? You best give a range, since the neverending disputes on the ratios...

See Treaty of Trianon article, there you have exact numbers about Magyar and non-Magyar populations in these regions. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

6. "Treaty of Trianon". Hungary not only lost the majority of it's population and area. She has lost it's mineral resources, while most of the Kingdom's industry remaind in the stub. She has lost it's only port (Fiume/Rijeka). And many rules were forced on the country, which seriously offended it's sovereignity (customs, army, transportation and so on). So this independence really was not that any of the nations would desire.

You forget that this population was mainly non-Hungarian and that this population did not exactly desired to live within Hungary before the Treaty. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
It is true and mentioned in the article. But the above facts help to understand why border revisions could be the primary political goal of interwar Hungary. Timur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.48.130 (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well the origin of the Greater Hungary idea is in fact in the Hungarian feudal society and politicaly wrong concept based on the "state historical rights to territory". The Greater Hungary idea between two world wars was a reflection of the fact that the former state policy based on the "historical rights" and Magyarization failed with the Trianon treaty. PANONIAN (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The aim of the Treaty of Trianon was not to create nation-states with flourishing economy but to preserve the instability and to ensure the Entente supremacy. Don't forget: The four big rulers of Central Europe were defeated. Chaos took place in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey disintegrated and there was a revolution in Russia. And these empires were not only defeated by their enemies, their political structure and leadership (be it Emperor, Tzar or Sultan) was dismissed by their nation as well. There was a political vacuum, an opportunity for other great powers. And their clear aim was to elongate this opportunity.

Well, this article is not about the aims of the Treaty but about people who wanted (or still want) to change it. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. Anyway, I don't think it would be a mistake to mention that the Treaty created a hostile atmosphere for Hungary by creating the so-called small Entente, to represent the interests of the Entente and to limit the political latitude of Hungary (as well as Austria). This atmosphere helped the Gretaer Hungary idea to become the base of all interwar Hungarian political movements. Timur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.48.130 (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, the little Entente was created as a response to Greater Hungary policy. PANONIAN (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

7. You forget to mention that the newly created countries in CE were NOT nation states as well. Czechoslovakia (containing today's Zakarpatskaya oblast as well this time) and the SHS Kingdom were ethnically diverse even more than the former Kingdom of Hungary. And because they did not learn from the example of the Monarchy (and Hungary), they followed it's fate. Even the enlarged Romania, which had a Romanian absolute majority and declared (and still declares) herself as a nation-state, was more ethnically inhomogenious than the post-WWI Hungary. In this climate, it is not so surprising that Hungary claimed territories with non-Hungarian ethnic majority.

But new countries were nation states. SHS Kingdom was a nation state of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, it just had many minorities. Of course, nobody claim that borders after Trianon were 100% rightfull, but if you compare the data that before Trianon more than 10 million non-Hungarians lived in Hungary and after Trianon 3,5 million Hungarians lived outside Hungary, you can see that borders after Trianon certainly were more rightful than those before. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what Croats thinks about your above statement... And such statements like "borders after Trianon certainly were more rightful than those before" are the base of all "Greater-XYCountry" concepts and century long hostilities in Europe. I think there is no such thing like "rightful border" in Europe, but it is strictly my opinion. Maybe I am not alone - it is enough to look at the aim of Schengen treaty. Timur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.48.130 (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, the present-day Croatian historians are too much frustrated with the recent wars to ask them for objective opinion about Yugoslavia. However, it is fact that Croats were not minority in Yugoslavia (or in the SHS Kingdom), but one of the recognized nations. The dispute in Yugoslavia was in fact about whether country should be centralized or federalized. The dispute was partially solved in 1939 by creation of Banovina of Croatia, and finally solved in 1945 by creation of 6 republic and 2 autonomous provinces. Regarding the borders in Europe, I did not said that they are rightfull, but that the current borders in Europe are more rightfull than those 100 years ago. If you see the map of Europe as it was in the end of the 19th century, you can see that much of Europe was ruled by 3 empires (Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, and Russian), while today you have many independent states in this area. I do not think that somebody could not agree that the current situation is more rightful (which does not mean that it is 100% rightful). PANONIAN (talk) 13:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

8. "because this cosmopolitan identity existed for centuries, modern Hungarian culture includes significant elements that come from places, which were part of Hungary in history." The elements from the places of former Kingdom of Hungary are part of the Hungarian culture simply because it was one country then.

9. "50.2% Romanians and 37.1% Hungarians". You should give a range. There is no consensus on the ethnicity rates.

I think that one data for this is from Romanian census, and another from Hungarian. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

10. "and some villages South of Bratislava". Three villages.

11. "According to some claims, from 1947 until the 1989 Romanian Revolution and the death of Ceauşescu, a systematic Romanianization of Hungarians took place". <<According to some claims, during WWII a systematic genocide of the Jews took place in Nazi-ruled parts of Europe>>. Don't you think it sounds strange?

Another fact: Romania was so "nice" to its minorities, that Germany "evacuated" the Saxons from Transylvania after the fall of the Ceausescu-regime. Timur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.48.130 (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

12. "Both during the Communist era and today, the Hungarian government has advocated for the rights of ethnic Hungarians" This is simply not true. The communist (not Communist) governements did nothing for the ethnic Hungarians. More accurately, they cancelled their citizenship during the 70s. That's all.

12. What you wrote about the "Trianon" film is interesting as well. It was on programme not only on one of tv channels in Hungary but in Romania as well. It is rather a documentary than a movie propagating revisionist ideas. And the neighboring countries' citizens are mature enough not to think that their territoritorial intactness will be offended by an EU and NATO member country, aren't they?

13. Even if the Magyarization seriously offended the nations of the pre-WWI Kingdom of Hungary, and set back their national development (it is enough to note that 100 000's of Slovakians emmigrated to the US, to escape from poverty), it would be not correct to describe it as a nationalist country, especially if we compare it to the new countries created after WWI, and in general to the government-supported nationalist movements of the XXth century. E.g. Hungary had not transported magyars to change ethnicity rates; but this was the practice of interwar and post-WWII Romania, Yugoslavia and post WWII Czechoslovakia (Sudeten), Soviet Union (Latvia), or Turkey (in the case of Cyprus). And in some aspects, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was more liberal than most European countries that time - just compare the situation of the Jews.

Actually, Hungary did transported Magyars to change ethnicity rates (this especially happened in Vojvodina, I am not sure for other places). For example, there was a plan to settle Magyars in Vojvodina around the rivers Danube and Tisa, so the Serbs in Bačka would be surounded by Hungarian settlements and they would be separated from other Serbs in Banat and Srem. PANONIAN (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder what the magnitude of these settlements were. Especially compared to those mentioned above. Many Germans and Slovaks were settled in the Vajdaság/Wojwodina region as well during the centuries - without any political or nationalist concepts. Timur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.48.130 (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You can check the current ethnic map and you can see that many of such Hungarian settlements along Danube and Tisa still exist, especially in northern Potisje, which had Serb ethnic majority in the first half of the 18th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vojvodina_ethnic2002.jpg The Slovaks also were settled in Vojvodina with the Magyarization purpose, because those who settled them were aware that Slovaks very easy become Magyars. Indeed, most of the Slovaks of Catholic faith were Magyarized, and only those who were Protestants remained Slovaks. The Germans were settled because of another political concept (Germanization) implemented by Vienna. PANONIAN (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Check the banknotes of the Hapsburg Monarchy, you find the denomination written in ethnic languages (besides German and Hungarian), like in Switzerland, Belgium or Finland. Now check the banknotes of any of the countries neighboring Hungary. Do you find it written in Hungarian? No, you don't, except interwar Czechoslovak notes. And what do you think would happen, if ethnic Hungarians asked to write the denomination in Hungarian on the Slovak koruna, Romanian leu or Serb dinar? It would be considered "nationalism", "revisionism" or maybe - with your words - "pan-Magyarism". But maybe it would be only a step toward a full life in their homeland...

http://aes.iupui.edu/rwise/notedir/europe.html

Anyway, your article is a well organized and detailed one, but maybe you should use more sources and ask the opinion of Romanian, Slovakian - and not at least Hungarian specialists. This would help a lot to understand each other and could show that we are grown up to solve problems in a civilised way...

Your Sincerely,

Timur Lenk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.48.130 (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

And, as I said already, many non-Hungarian and Hungarian users worked on this article, so you simply do not have one single person which is "guilty" for this article. PANONIAN (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Noone mentioned "guilty", only the lack of political neutrality and diverse aspects. Thank you for your reactions. Timur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.224.48.130 (talk) 10:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Near realisation of ...

Unreliable or not, the Hungarian census from 1941 was the only official we could talk about. The rest of the datas are only speculation, estimation. Sure this cenus could not take a "snapshot" of the demographic situation of the region form 1938 or 1940, right after the Wienna awards ... BUT this is an official census, like many others from 1850, or 1930 ... Sure I can (and I will) add anywhere to Wikipedia where recent censuses are mentioned that they are unreliable, and according to a book written by Jacob Gipsz the percent of hungarians in Transylvania is 40%. And the Romanian census from 2002 is unreliable ... Look at the Romanians article. However the Romanians pretends that in Hungary are still living more then 400,000 Romanians, the official census counted 7,000 ... --fz22 07:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The census performed during fascist occupation is unacceptable as valid source. Its results (on Yugoslav territory at least) were very different from both, previous census in 1931 and next one in 1948 (while results in these two are similar). Also, why you deleted numbers from 1931 census that I posted? I do not know much about population of Transylvania, but Vojvodina never had 40-47% Hungarians. See this Hungarian web site with 1941 census: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hmcb/Tab21.htm According to this site, the population of Vojvodina in 1941 was composed of 35.3% Serbs, 28.5% Hungarians, and 19.4% Germans. The numbers of 40-47% Hungarians is a number for Bačka, not for Vojvodina. If your source listed that as population of Vojvodina it is obvious error (no matter if that error is made purposelly or not). Also, all censa between 1880 and 1941 did not recorded ethnicity but language, thus we do not speak here about number of Hungarians, but about number of Hungarian language speakers. Ethnicity and language do not always correspond one with another, just see the Subotica article, where according to 2002 census you had 38.47% Hungarians and 24.14% Serbs, but languages spoken in the area are 46.60% Serbian and 38.82% Hungarian. If we judge by the language we would conclude that Subotica have relative Serb majority, right? PANONIAN (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That's right we are talking about Bacska. Let's assume the census from 1920-1930 after the Trianon treaty were also unacceptable for Hungarians as a valid source (around 350,000 persecuted Hungarians fled their homeland + in Slovakia the number of Magyars decreased by 25% in a few years). So according to the 1910 census (the last before the Great War) we have 30% Magyars, 25% Serbs, 20% Germans. The 45.8% is the total number of Hungarian speaking persons in Bacska (they spoke Hungarian != have Hungarian as native language)--fz22 15:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That is wrong comparasion here. You can compare Yugoslav censa from 1921 and 1931 with Austro-Hungarian censa from 1900 and 1910, but census from 1941 was something specific. It was performed in fascist state as a part of fascist propaganda and it is proved that its results were not valid. So, as you can see, I did not removed numbers from this census (no matter of its propagandist nature), I only added other data which is different from data on that census. I do not see problem that we have both data here, but it is you who removing other data and posting here only your own. That is called POV pushing and it is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Regarding data from 1910 you speak about, this data is not for Serbian part of Bačka, but for what was then Bačka-Bodrog county, which was larger territory and the percent of Hungarians in Serbian part of Bačka would not be so different if we compare censa from 1910 and 1931. The question of Hungarian language is also a problem. The question in Hungarian census was not about "mother tongue" but about "most frequently spoken language", thus the citizens simply answered what language they mostly use in everyday communication, not what language they use in home. Besides this, many non-Hungarians were afraid to say their true language in 1941, thus that is why we have this anomaly with that census. To conclude: you may say that data from Romanian book presented here is POV, but the data presented by you is also POV, so, we either will post both, either none. PANONIAN (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
1. Hungary wasn't a fascist state. Your statement is a 100% pure POV fz22 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course it was, both, Hungary and Nedićs Serbia were fascist states in that time, as well as all other allies of Nazi Germany. Claim that any of these states was not fascist state would be nothing else but history twisting. PANONIAN (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The 1941 ccensus may be unreliable, but Hungary under Horthy was never a fascist state. The only clearly fascist regime in Hungary was Szalasi's rule from 1944-5. john k 22:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
But what is a base for the claim that Hungarian regime was not fascist? What was so different between regime in Hungary and that in Nazi Germany? The policy of extermination of Jews was certainly same in both as early as in January 1942, long before Szalasi. PANONIAN (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
That's complete nonsense. There was killing of Jews in the Vojvodina in January 1942, but that doesn't mean that the Horthy regime had a "policy of extermination of Jews," much less that their Jewish policy was the same as that of the Nazis. The Hungarian Jews weren't sent to Auschwitz until Horthy was overthrown, and this was due to the regime explicitly refusing to countenance the deportation of Hungarian Jews. The Hungarian regime was certainly a right wing one, but up until 1944 it retained considerable liberal elements, perhaps due to the long liberal tradition in Hungary. I've seen it described as "reactionary liberalism." There were elections and a certain degree of civil society in Hungary throughout. Teleki, the Hungarian prime minister in 1939-1941, was certainly no fascist - he was an old school conservative, and his government represented a retreat from more fascistizing tendencies of the Gömbös and Imrédy regimes of the mid to late 30s. I don't really have any interest in defending the Horthy regime, whihch was certainly unpleasant, but I've never seen any scholar describe it as actually "fascist." Can you find any sources that support your contention? john k 18:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Sure, plenty of sources. I even do not know historical book published in former Yugoslavia which speak about these events that do not mention Hungarin state as fascist. What you think why the fight of the resistance movement was named "anti-fascist fight"? I am sure that those Jews killed in 1942 would like to hear your explanation how Hungary was liberal and free country. :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Saying that the Hungarian census from 1941 had more propaganda included than eg. the Romananian one held in 1930 is another POV. fz22 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It is proven by the comparision of that census with previous and subsequent censa and by the fact that it greatly differ from all of them, including those censa from Austria-Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
3. You wrong there was two question one about mother tounge and another for "most frequently spoken language". This is something specific for Hungarian census since the Mid 19th cenutry. Maybe you're right some of the Serbians declared themself as Hungarian, but why don't you accept that in the same way in 1921-1931-195x there were also Hungarians who were "afraid to say their true language they use in home" (using your words) fz22 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
But the Yugoslav state between 1918 and 1941 did not had a policy of genocidal extermination of Hungarians like the Hungarian state between 1941 and 1944 had a policy of extermination of Serbs. I do not see why Hungarians in Yugoslavia would be afraid to declare their identity. Just remember why Pal Teleky commited suicide in 1941 and what he wrote in his last epistle. PANONIAN (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
4. As I promised I'll add for every single Wikipedia article a Hungarian POV saying the data mentioned there (eg. Romanian/Yugoslavian census from 2000-2002) is comming from unreliable sources and I know a book written by XY where the percentage for the specified territory is just the contrary. (e.g. the number of Hungarians in Transylvania is still above 2,5 million just beacause I know a book which says this...) Can you accept this ;)??--fz22 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
What is problem with you anyway? It is generally accepted that fascist propaganda from WW2 was false and served genocidal policy of both, Nazi Germany, and its allies. See this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Voting-booth-Anschluss-10-April-1938.jpg Do you really want to defend that??? That is same kind of propaganda on which you insist here. Census from 1941 was fabricated to serve fascist propaganda and that have nothing to do with any other censa in history. All other censa in this region, including Austro-Hungarian ones before 1918 were more or less free and are not fabricated like that. PANONIAN (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

After Trianon

We are talking here what Hungarians had thought about Trianon right after the Treaty. Right? so what's the problem?
Problem is that you did not stated what non-Hungarians had thought about Trianon. This is one-sided POV. PANONIAN (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course, not. i've just rectified the sentence started with "Hungarian revisionism claims" and at least here we could add what they (and not other non-Magyars) did claimed. Right? --fz22 11:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
But let me quote what you wrote: "and recognised later by a peace treaty widely regarded as unjust". So, you did not wrote that some Hungarians consider this unjust, but that it is "widely regarded as unjust" (by everybody). Can you notice the difference? PANONIAN (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
"was granted independence or joined neighbouring countries" this is Entente propaganda. In fact in November 1918 when Hungary signed the armistice there were no foreign troops on Hungarian soils. There were no civil war between Magyars and non-Magyars during the WWI (Irish people revolted against Brittain in 1917!). A new democratic government was formed but the new Hungarian state was invaded from 3 different directions and finally collapsed. The treaty just recognised the rights over the teritories occupied by the Romanian, Serbian and Czecks troops. Just think on what happened in Turkey when they became aware of the Entente "Peace". If Hungary would put up resitance our present day borders won't be the same as we know--fz22 10:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Entente propaganda??? No, Fz, it is truth that you do not want to accept. Read this article for example: Banat, Bačka and Baranja. You can see that separation from Hungary was initiative of local people, not something what was imposed by Entente (and even Serbian government did not recognized new government of Vojvodina formed by local people in 1918). They were citizens of Hungary and decided to separate from Hungary, simple thing. And you really do not want to know whose troops were on Vojvodinian soil in November 1918, but I will tell you: the troops of Serb Safeguard made by local Serbs who themselves expelled Austro-Hungarian soldiers from many places of the region including Novi Sad, before Serbian army actually arrived. PANONIAN (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok and why no plebiscites were held?
Because it was a policy of the peace conference, simple answer. If we start to ask why no plebiscites were held in many parts of the history, we can also ask why plebiscite was not held in 1860 when Voivodship of Serbia and Tamiš Banat was abolished and incorporated into Kingdom of Hungary. I am sure that most of its Slavic and Romanian inhabitants would vote against its incorporation into Kingdom of Hungary, but nobody asked them. Same things happened in other parts of the history. PANONIAN (talk) 14:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
QED. so you want to say that the Trianon Treaty was a gross injustice for Hungarians just like the incorporation of Banat into Hungary for "Yugoslav" people? :) btw the secret ballot was only introduced in 1890 in USA ;) Ok I can accept this :) --fz22 15:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
But, Fz, did you noticed that such stories about "land stolen from Hungary" always apply to the entire territory of the former Hungarian Kingdom, not only to those where Hungarians were ethnic majority? I would even agree if somebody say that "those lands where Hungarians were majority were stolen from Hungary in 1920", but I never hear that somebody say something like this. There is always story that "all lands were stolen from Hungary". Of course, the question from whom Hungary "stole" these lands is another story. :) PANONIAN (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Panonian, what you edited out here was meant to be (but wasn't quite, I admit) a NPOV description of the views of Hungarian irredentists. Then, for formal reasons refers to Hungary - they waited 1 day for formal reasons (so that de jure, Hungary didn't invade Yugoslavia because the territories in question were occupied by the Germans the day before). I've tried to clarify that.

I disagree with your addition "(mostly those who were connected with Axis authorities during the war)". Bloodshed against civilians is never as controlled as that, not to mention that "mostly" and "connected" are clear-cut weasel terms. It would be nice if you could rephrase it to something factual, or if that's not possible, remove it.

KissL 14:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then you write that Treaty was unjust from the point of view of Hungarians, and it would be fine with me. The invasion of Yugoslavia could be also described with another words, so, try to change the sentence. Regarding the killings made by Yugoslav partisans after the war, the problem is that such killings were not ethnically motivated. Maybe you are not aware, but partisans killed much more Serbs than Hungarians (I am not talking here about Bačka but about Yugoslavia in general). The aim of the partisans was in fact to punish those that collaborated with Axis regimes in Yugoslavia, althought I agree that criteria who was collaborator and who was not was ideologically motivated and that sometimes people were labeled as collaborators simply because new communist authorities considered them a threat for the state. There might be also some Hungarians who were killed after the war simply because of the revenge, but fact is that many Hungarians also were partisans, and actually the problem with this whole sentence is because it tend to imply that Hungarians were killed because of ethnical reasons, while reasons in fact were political. Remove that sentence added by me if you want, although, I will try to find some other phrase that could better to explain events after the war. PANONIAN (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


One vs three multiethnic states

the Croatians were definetely a state component element in Hungary. BTW the so called "Magyar Birodalom" (Empire of Hungary) was formed from three separate administrative entity after 1868: proper Hungary, Croatia-Dalmatia, and Fiume. Both of them had authonomous governments, this is why Hungarians offen called them "co-countries" (társ-orszag). This is why I suggest to use either 54% for Magyars in (proper) Hungary or we add the Croats percentage (in the same way as we do for the Slovaks percentage -12%- for Czechoslovakia)--fz22 07:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, I will come back to these numbers later. Juro 12:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Croats were not nation in the Kingdom of Hungary. They had territorial autonomy within the Kingdom, but autonomy is not same as nation status. In the Kingdom of Hungary after 1867, only Hungarians were recognized as a nation. The official policy was that all inhabitants of the Kingdom are Hungarians and that they all should speak Hungarian language. Germans which lived in the Kingdom of Hungary were not regarded as nation and official policy of the Kingdom was to Magyarize them too. The Croats were only ethnic group that had some kind of autonomy in the Kingdom, but it was only autonomy not a nation status. Croatia-Slavonia and Kingdom of Hungary were not two equal political entities, but Croatia-Slavonia was subordinated to the Kingdom of Hungary. Besides this, the policy of the Kingdom was to Magyarize Croats like all other ethnic groups. PANONIAN (talk) 13:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
They have parliament(Sabor), government (see 1868/XXX), and a minister in the Hungarian government ... Don't you think this is more than just a simple autonomy? I think the Szekelys would be pleased with such an autonomy :) BTW I think you know why the Croats (as a nation!) were represented by the unionist party in the Croato-Hungarian negotiations from 1868 (If don't ask Levin Rauch :). Ferenc Deak was on the National Party side (and opposed count Andrássy and Lónyay). He proposed a monetary separation - among others - and he well knew that the public opinion of Croatia was behind the National Pary and they (Hungarians) were interested in a longstanding and prosperous Croato-Hungarian relationship ... unfortunately his demand was not accomplished ...--fz22 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
"They have parliament(Sabor), government (see 1868/XXX), and a minister in the Hungarian government ... Don't you think this is more than just a simple autonomy?" :))) No, Fz, this is just a simple autonomy. Present-day Autonomous Province of Vojvodina also have parliament, government as well as ministers in the Serbian government, so it is not something special. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
You just compare something from the mid 19th century with an autonomy from the late 20th century. Tell me what kind of autonomy has been realised in Scotland or Ireland in the same time. Anyway the Croats had special status in the KoH leastwise comparable with their new status in the SCS Kingdom. Let alone their "rights" after 1929 --fz22 06:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Added Pov template

According to the discussion here, the article has a personal view. I added the Pov template.Baxter9 08:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Irredentist

After the last edit of Lásztocska, I am still convinced that the lead section mentioning Hungarian irredentists was not a neutral description of the situation. This is part of the anti-Hungarian campaign of Panonian on Wikipedia. Irredentism has a disapproving meaning, and I am not surprised that this expression is not used in the History of Serbia article. If Panonian is ready to include the following sentence there: "The aim of Serbian irredentists of uniting Voivodina with Serbia was completed after World War I" I will have no objection to this expression here either.
Anyway, have a look at the Greater Romania article, it is a good example of a neutral article. --KIDB 06:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If we want to be neutral and honest, we should follow this chronologically. 1. Hungary wanted to restore the old borders between the two world wars and this was partly successful. 2. After WWII, Hungary gave up these aspirations. 3. Today the wast majority of the population is not interested in any border modifications, however, a few marginalised irredentist groups still exist.
It is impressing, however, how much energy Panonian has to make his point - look at this single talk page. --KIDB 07:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But you cannot compare unification of Serbia and Vojvodina with Greater Hungarian ideology - the largest ethnic group in Vojvodina before that unification were Serbs, while Greater Hungarian irredentists want to "unify" their country with territories where Hungarians are not largest ethnic group, that is very big difference. You can compare such Hungarian irredentism with position of Serbian government about Kosovo, but since I am not interested at all in Kosovo question, it is your own choice whether you will writte that in Kosovo article. The thing is that current sentence that claim that "it was political goal of Hungary" is very wrong because it imply that all Hungarians were fascists who supported such idea and that is in fact anti-Hungarian. I am surre that many Hungarians (especially communists) did not supported irredentist ideas. Therefore, we have to writte which part of the Hungarian society supported such ideas and I do not know other proper word for that part of society instead "irredentists" (if you know other word, please tell me which one it is). Regarding word "restoration", I do not agree with its usage because it is in fact irredentist point of view - it was just their opinion that Hungary and KOH were same countries and that they want to "restore" borders (they cannot restore borders of something that do not exist any more). Therefore, the correct word is expanzion of borders (of course with irredentist view described after correct description). Regarding the part of Hungarian population that support irredentist ideas, the official state policy of modern Hungary indeed does not support such ideas, but you cannot deny that there are people who support it even today (sometimes even in hidden instead in open form). PANONIAN 21:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see there was no point in providing a link for you to the irredentism article. I copy here for you the following sentence from that article: "The word was coined in Italy from the phrase Italia irredenta ("unredeemed Italy"). This originally referred to Austro-Hungarian rule over mostly or partly Italian-inhabited territories such as Trentino and Trieste during the 19th and early 20th century." You see, Serbians were irredentists when they wanted to control Voivodina. Now it's up to you if you want to include this in the History of Voivodina article. If you think it is appropriate to use it there, I will have no problem with it in this article either. --KIDB 23:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The origin of the term "irredentism" might be what you presented, but the meaning of the term has changed during the time and was widely used to describe Hungarian political aims between two world wars. On the contrary, it was never used in connection to Serbs and Vojvodina. But anyway, we can use term "Hungarian ultra-nationalists" instead "Hungarian irredentists", would that satisfy you? PANONIAN 08:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I never cease to be amazed about the debate the phrase "restore the borders of the Kingdom of Hungary" has caused here. We could perhaps say "...wish to restore the Kingdom of Hungary", but while that would be less ambiguous, it would also be less correct (it would imply that all Hungarian irredentists are also monarchists, which is incorrect.) The problem with "...wish to expand the borders of Hungary" is that it makes it sound as though the irredentists see no historical precedent of borders they want to get back, and that they simply want to expand the state willy-nilly into every corner of Europe (also incorrect, except maybe for a few random nutters.) You might strongly disagree with the notion that modern Hungary has any sort of connection with the Kingdom of Hungary (Ugarska/Madarska kind of thing), but your personal opinion does not change the fact that "restore the borders of the Kingdom of Hungary" is the clearest and most accurate description of the irredentists' goals. K. Lásztocska 23:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the "historical precedent" that you speak about, exactly that is problem here. It is not point how "irredentists see that", but how an neutral international encyclopaedia see it. The point is that peoples like Serbs, Croats, Slovaks, Romanians, etc who lived in the former Kingdom of Hungary see this "historical precedent" very different that Hungarian irredentists and for these peoples Greater Hungary is indeed nothing but territorial expanzion to their ancestral lands (not to Hungarian lands) and for them these lands were always their own no matter that Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary ruled over it in certain time period (against the will of local inhabitants). The basic difference is also their view that Kingdom of Hungary was a multiethnic kingdom of many nations, while post-1918 Hungary is a national state of Hungarians (i.e. the new state) whose borders defined by the Treaty of Trianon are the only borders that this new state ever had. In another words, we can mention that aim of the irredentists (with note that it is "according to them" or "by their opinion") is "restoration" of borders, but only after encyclopaedic description that aim itself is "expanzion of borders". PANONIAN 08:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, post-Trianon Hungary did change its borders briefly--during World War 2 it got a chunk of Transylvania and some of the Banat, remember? Anyway, that's not the point...
How about we say something like "...wish to expand the borders of Hungary to the historical frontiers of the Kindgom of Hungary"? Would something like that be an accurate but also politically neutral compromise? K. Lásztocska 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
This "WW2 border change" was unilateral Axis action that was not recognized by the international community. PANONIAN 10:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind--I just noticed the recent changes to the lead. (That'll teach me to go straight to the talk page before reading the article...) I fixed a few minor grammar/style issues but otherwise it looks great. Thanks, Panonian, for being willing to compromise a bit--I think we've managed to really improve the article now instead of just fighting...we should do this more often. ;-) K. Lásztocska 02:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

this is what you call a compromise?? "Hungarian revisionists wanted to enlarge them at the expense of the new neighbouring" ... I will add this sentence to every single article about pre-WWI Romania and Yuogslavia :) --fz22 14:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
There was no preWWI Yugoslavia. And do I have to remind you that it is forbidden to edit articles with only purpose to prove your point. If you have problem with this sentence please say here what exactly is wrong with it and how would you change it. Thank you. PANONIAN 17:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
FZ--yes, I agree that the "enlarge the borders at the expense of neighboring states" sentence could definitely be re-written for NPOV, but ignore that sentence for a moment and look at the current lead compared to how it was a few days ago. I didn't say it was perfect yet, but it's a lot better. K. Lásztocska 18:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
What is wrong with the sentence? PANONIAN 23:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
No, no, I see no problem in this sentence. But:
new Hungarian state? Why? (according to this logic there were only new Hungarian states during history: 1867, 1918, 1919, 1945, 1947, 1989). Hungary of Trianon is a common term in Hungarian history books
Fine, we can write that treaty defined just "borders of Hungary" with no statements that it were "new borders" or that it was "new country". Is that ok? PANONIAN 23:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary? theoreticaly Habsburg-Lorraine ... and the temporal coverage of Habsburg Hungary is also incorrect ... This term is used mostly for the pre-1867 period ... 'Historic Hungary' is also a common term in Hungarian historiography denoting pre Trianon Hungary
But Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary is very correct term - it was territory in the possession of Habsburgs. PANONIAN 23:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I also can't see objectionable part here: "In its foreign policy the country was seeking the revision of the peace treaty: this policy insulated it politically in the 20s and pushed it towards Hitler's Germany in the 30s.[2] In justification of their political objectives, Hungarian politicains and the overwhelming majority of public opinion in Hungary" I object to the 'revisionists' term here ... --fz22 19:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
What other term you proposing then? Usage of word "Hungarians" would be insulting for those Hungarians who are not irredentists/revisionists and we do not want to insult them, dont we? PANONIAN 23:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Now I am not in a mood to get involved in this edit war again, I simply would like to say that I support the latest edits of Fz22. Panonian did not accept what we wrote in the lead section as a compromise, he started to rewrite it again. I already know him, he will not give up until the article will become his POV again. I really start to get fed up with Panonian and I would support if any of the Bulgarian, Croatian, or Hungarian editors he is in permanent edit war with, proposed a ban on him. --KIDB 21:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I did accepted your suggestions (for example one not to use term "irredentists") but you then added new problematic sentences. I am always open to discuss how to make this article acceptable for everybody. Also please refrain from hate-speech against me here - I done nothing to insult you personally, so I do not understand why you have something personal against me. I am not guilty because these editors you mentioned are nationalists that do not edit articles in good faith. PANONIAN 23:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see, I do "hate-speech" and all those non-Serb people you are edit warring with are "nationalists that do not edit articles in good faith". Nice. --KIDB 00:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I do not care what is nationality of "all those people" (not to mentioned that "all those people" are just several users who could be counted by the fingers of the hands). And it is fact that they do not edit articles in good faith, but with purpose to prove their political points about "future new borders in Europe". PANONIAN 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he deserves a ban--he's under a lot of stress lately which may be affecting his mood and mind rather negatively. That said, I somehow had not noticed the significant changes in the lead since our little Compromise (didn't look at the page history and didn't read the article closely!!), and I thought I was preserving something good by reverting fz22. Well, turns out I wasn't preserving anything very good at all, so I apologize for the revert. I am now going to re-instate the earlier lead section from our compromise (before Pani changed everything) and I hope this time it will survive at least 24 hours without someone changing it again.K. Lásztocska 20:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
But why you reverted this? What exactly is wrong with my version? PANONIAN 23:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
The old (Compromise) version, IMO, was clearer and more concise. K. Lásztocska 01:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
What compromise? You had dispute with me, so I do not see that we reached a compromise that you refer to. PANONIAN 21:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

is which defined the new borders of the Hungarian state (usually referred to as Hungary of Trianon [1]) that replaced the former Historic Kingdom of Hungary.

as I already proposed, we can writte simply "defined borders of the Hungarian state". PANONIAN 23:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"cosmopolitan" Kingdom of Matthias Rex does not go on all fours

must be also reformulated ...--fz22 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wanna say

..this article is not written from an objective stance, somehow by reading this article I get the feeling that the person who wrote Near realization of Greater Hungary has some large grudge against Hungarian people to say the least, why is there no mention of thousands of Hungarians killed in Romania and Serbia. During the 90' war in Yugoslavia, Hungarians were beaten, killed and driven from there homes. A lot of them fled to Hungaria to save their lives. And the sources: 1. Dr. Fedor Nikić, Mađarski imperijalizam, Novi Sad - Srbinje, 2004., 2. Danilo Urošević, Srbi u logorima Mađarske, Novi Sad, 1955., I mean you base your article information on books written by purely Serb point of view. Why are there no other sources inlisted, tahat aren't from Serbia (or Romania)!! This article is a disgrace!!--Aqua byte 14:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If you see page history and go through this talk page, it will be clear to you who added what in this mess. Squash Racket 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a source /Peter Rokai - Zoltan Đere - Tibor Pal - Aleksandar Kasaš, Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002./, because it contains false informations about the census of 1941. The difference is too much, even If the census had not been entirely accurate. It is not the Middle Ages when we have to work with estimations. It states Backa had 1 million inhabitants. What happened with 250,000 people? I inserted new source about the census (online available).Fakirbakir (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, while I do not have enough free time to be active here as before, I read comments at some talk pages from time to time and I have to answer to this accusation that I added false data into article. This data is not census data and it does not refer to Bačka, but to whole "Yugoslav territory occupied by Hungary" (meaning Bačka + Baranja + Međimurje + Prekmurje) and it is an estimation about population of this whole area in the time of Hungarian occupation in 1941 (the census that you mention was conducted later in that year after several thousands Serbs was expelled from the region and after several thousands of Hungarians settled there in their place). And whether is this Middle Ages or not, this estimation is only data that we have about population of entire territory of Yugoslavia occupied by Hungary in 1941 (it is by any mean more relevant than population of Bačka region only). I am currently not interested to edit this article, but this was sourced data that was removed without valid reason, and furthermore that data came from non-nationalist ethnic Hungarian historians who wrote very good book about history of Hungarians. PANONIAN 17:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed regions

Yerevanci, I suggest that you inform yourself better about politics in Central Europe and to refrain yourself from controversial edits that are not in accordance with NPOV policy of Wikipedia. So, let me elaborate problems with your edit: proposed Hungarian autonomous regions are not existing regions, but only political proposals (which are controversial due to the fact that proposed borders of these regions would include sizable non-Hungarian populations). I see no problem that these proposals are mentioned (and I was the one who created a map of one of these proposals, anyway), but we cannot present proposed regions in a same way in which we presenting existing regions. Therefore, presenting those regions as regions with an actual area size or population is simply not accurate. Also, I am pretty sure that there are proposals for Hungarian autonomous region in Slovakia (I am not sure for Ukraine), so it would not be correct to say that there are no official proposals for those. Also, the table should not be focused on imaginary proposed regions, but on actual issues related to Hungarians. Therefore, Hungarians are also inhabiting other parts of Transylvania (not only 3 counties) and mentioned cities should not be presented as "capitals of imaginary regions", but as cultural/political centers of local Hungarian communities (which they indeed are). As for Hungarian city names, this is English-language Wikipedia and articles are usually using names that are primarily used in English, while Hungarian names are mentioned as such in each city article and it is not in accordance with Wiki naming policies to mention alternative city names in each article where these cities are mentioned. In opposite case, all alternative city names in all languages should be mentioned in all articles, including, for example, Serbian Cyrillic name for Subotica: Суботица. Also, why you used smaller font for Romania, Serbia, and Ukraine? PANONIAN 09:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Yerevanci, I suggest that you inform yourself better about politics in Central Europe and to refrain yourself from controversial edits that are not in accordance with NPOV policy of Wikipedia.
Dear PANONIAN, I suggest that you read the title of the artcle edited first and then comment about my knowledge of politics in Central Europe. The article is called Greater Hungary and not Hungarian diaspora. The point of this table is showing the Hungarian nationalistic claims and not the Hungarian population according to the official administrative divisions like Vojvodina or Zakarpattia Oblast. It's not about Hungarian communities in neighboring countries, but the Hungarian nationalistic claims.
So, let me elaborate problems with your edit: proposed Hungarian autonomous regions are not existing regions, but only political proposals (which are controversial due to the fact that proposed borders of these regions would include sizable non-Hungarian populations).
So, the problem is that they would include sizable non-Hungarian populations?? If yes, then you should keep away from this article. The claims are not to be discussed. Everyone can have their own opinion concerning that proposals. We should present the poroposals and not discuss, even if they don't make sense to you at all.
Also, I am pretty sure that there are proposals for Hungarian autonomous region in Slovakia (I am not sure for Ukraine), so it would not be correct to say that there are no official proposals for those.
Well, if there are then why don't you add it?? I did some research but I didn't find any accurate proposals from any Hungarian political orgaization in Slovakia.
Also, the table should not be focused on imaginary proposed regions, but on actual issues related to Hungarians.
Again, this article is about that proposals. Greater Hungary itself is imaginary. Every irrendentist claims is imaginary.
As for Hungarian city names, this is English-language Wikipedia and articles are usually using names that are primarily used in English, while Hungarian names are mentioned as such in each city article and it is not in accordance with Wiki naming policies to mention alternative city names in each article where these cities are mentioned. In opposite case, all alternative city names in all languages should be mentioned in all articles, including, for example, Serbian Cyrillic name for Subotica Суботица.
Why would you write the Serbian name of the city in an article which talks about Hungarian claims??
Also, why you used smaller font for Romania, Serbia, and Ukraine?
So they would fit in the table.--Yerevanci (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was speaking about: you do not understand the difference between Greater Hungary as an pseudo-historical concept with a goal of establishing imperial hegemony over non-Hungarian peoples in Central Europe and democratic proposals of local Hungarian politicians for creation of autonomous regions for local Hungarians. These two things are very different issues and question of proposed Hungarian autonomous regions is different from the question of Greater Hungary. Therefore, the elaboration of these autonomy proposals within this article is example of an missed subject. If you say that this article is not "about Hungarian communities in neighboring countries", then, by all means, it is also not about Hungarian autonomy proposals since these proposals are more related to Hungarian communities in neighboring countries than to a political concept of Greater Hungary. Anyway, I was not active in Wikipedia for some time and I did not yet examined all recent changes of other users within this article, but I will see to improve it a bit when I find more free time. All in all, Hungarian autonomy proposals are not a subject of this article - they could be briefly mentioned here as an related subject, but certainly not elaborated in detail. As for proposals for autonomous region in Slovakia, I have in my computer several maps that showing this proposal, but I am not sure who stands behind these maps. Anyway, the issue should be researched further. As for name issues, proposal of Hungarian Regional Autonomy in northern Vojvodina does not represent "Hungarian claims" (what ever you mean by that). It represents an democratic idea about an autonomous region within Vojvodina and Serbia (not idea about an region that would be separated from Serbia and included into Greater Hungary). Therefore, Serbian Cyrillic name is relevant if we speak about one region inside Serbia. But, as I said, alternative city names are usually used in Wikipedia within city articles and the name of the city that is most commonly used in English is usually used within other articles where such city is mentioned. And final thing: why you removed several images in your last edit? PANONIAN 17:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Just do whatever you want to do. I deleted the pictures because they don't have anything to do with this artcile such as banknotes, or the coat of arms. --Yerevanci (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Problems with this article

--The definition of what 'Greater Hungary' is. It is initially described as being the expansion of Hungary to the boundaries of the former kingdom, yet is later listed as drawing Hungary's borders along ethnic lines, the later being best be refereed to as an 'Ethnic Hungary' concept, perhaps another article entirely.

--A definition of the origin of the problem. Quick references are made to the detached territories having Hungarian minorities with 'Hungarian majority areas,' however that is highly oversimplified. The southern strip of territory in Slovakia and going east into Transcarpathia was overwhelmingly Hungarian in character as seen on pre-Magyarization maps such as this one from 1880. Furthermore, in Backa north of the Danube-Tisa-Danube canal, Hungarians are shown as the majority, as they are in the northwest portion of Banat, and they are shown as mixed in Baryana in Croatia. Only in Transylvania (when looking at the 1880 map) do you have three basic areas of Hungarian settlement--a majority along the northeast border, a majority in the Szekely region and a concentrated minority of 1/3-2/5 going through the middle (through Zilau, Cluj, Turda and Mures). With the exception of that central Transylvanian strip, all the areas mentioned were of Hungarian majorities, not scattered or diluted settlements which one could claim were separated in the name of self determination. Furthermore, there is no mention that the Hungarian delegation at the end of WWI demanded plebiscites with regard to all border changes--perhaps the most reasonable demand of any delegation following WWI.

--Assuming Magyarization started in 1867. Yes Hungary had relieved the power over its minorities, however Hungary's finances were in a state of ruin until 1875 and it had to cope with the cholera outbreak of 1872-73 which was nearly severe enough to eliminate the whole population growth from 1869-1880. Having to cope with such problems wouldn't have left the time and resources for assimilation policies, especially given that even in 1880, there were more Romanian language schools in Hungary than in Romania.

--A double standard--it was fine for Romanians, Slovaks and Serbs to rule over Hungarian minorities, however it is occupation when Hungarians rule over the above mentioned people. Furthermore, the desire of the Romanians and Serbs to 'rescue' their captive brethren under the rule of Hungary was fine, yet any mention of Hungarians trying to do the same is somehow evil and warmongering. It is the exact same thing in both cases with neither being 'good' or 'evil' unless they over-reach.

--- No double standard. It is fine for Romanians, Slovaks and Serbs to rule over Hungarian minorities (today), and it is NOT fine for Hungarians to rule over Romanians, Slovaks and Serbians majorities (pre-1918).

--A lack of information on the flight and expulsion of Hungarians following WWI. Some 197,000 from Romania, 88,000 from Slovakia, 45,000 from Vojvodina and 19,000 from Transcarpathia between 1918-1924.

--A lack of information on the colonization of ethnic Hungarian areas, especially from 1920-1930 and 1944-1989. Comparing the Slovak 1921 census data with that of the 1930 data shows a general 150% increase in the Slovak element in mainly Hungarian areas, despite the number of Slovaks in Slovakia only increasing by 13.93%. Also, there is no mention of the Hungarian cities of Cluj, Mures, Oradea, Satu Mare and Zilau were flooded with imported colonists and the Hungarian population was made a minority. If those changes cannot be compared with, if not labeled as having caused a greater change than the Magyarization of 1880-1918, I don't know what can.

--- Related to the cities of Cluj, Mures, Oradea, Satu Mare and Zalau, pre-1918 population was artificially kept as majoritarian Hungarian by historicals city-bans for Romanians, Magyarization and other forms of anti-Romanian discrimination. The shift in city population ethnicity can be caused by a set of a lot of reasons, such as: obviously, centres of commerce/economy would be an attraction to people - so post-1918 you would see a natural increase of Romanians in the cities without having the same increase of Hungarians. No more Magyarization meant no more "new" Hungarians as well as some of the magyarized Romanians switching back to to Romanians. There is also the fact that many Hungarians simply chose to leave those cities and move to Hungary proper. And most likely there were a lot of other reasons why the Hungarian population saw a drop, while the Romanian population saw an increase in numbers in those cities - not necessarily nefarious as you imply. So your assessment is simplistic and unfounded.

--Perhaps most telling is that virtually all nations in East-Central Europe have attempted to, or succeeded in undergoing a 'greater' phase over the past century, the 'greater phase' being when the boundaries of the country in question exceed the ethno-linguist borders. Some justified their actions on the population's ethno-linguistic makeup, some on historic sizes and shapes, some geographical frontiers and some all of the above combined, yet all greedily overextended their borders beyond their ethno-linguistic boundaries rather than adjusting for minority areas, causing suffering for the minority groups left within. Of those which can still be considered greater, most have committed war crimes (mainly ethnic cleansing and the killing that accompanies it) to secure their 'greater' size, most of those that did having not been punished for their transgressions. In short, the 1938-1944 expansion was nothing unique to Hungary. It's all a shame really--those who initially would seek just borders either get caught up in the 'fever' (or are outright brainwashed) or are overruled by true expansionists or politicians who have no clue as how to draw borders (as the Yugoslav Wars showed), with the exceptions to the rule being the borders of Estonia and Latvia drawn after WWI and the proposed borders of the Republic of German Austria following WWI. Prussia1231 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The title of the article / subject matter

Without reliable sources about the "concept" this page seems to be only a sort of "propaganda" article. What is the aim of this page? Fakirbakir (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, why you reverted my changes here? My goal was to improve this article and I only changed obvious POV errors. There is tag that suggests that neutrality of this article is disputed and you should not revert users who try to make this article more correct and more neutral. 77.105.24.124 (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I reverted you because you have added POV sentences in the lead (e.g. the "awful" explanation of the concept). I will not revert you again, but statements like "name of a political concept, which represents a goal of some Hungarian nationalists" really need citations. Unfortunately this page bristles with POV statements. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we should rename the article to "Hungarian revisionism" or something like this.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


Greater Hungary (political concept) → Hungarian revisionism (political concept) – The name of the political concept is known as "Hungarian revisionism".[1][2][3][4] The current name "Greater Hungary" is incorrect and misleading. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"Hungarian revisionism" is the "proper" political concept, "Greater Hungary" is rather a geographical or historical expression. The title is OR in my opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Technically "revisionism" may have been used for this concept. But "revisionism" still remains a "loaded word" and biased, whereas Greater Hungary as a political concept states it clearly even if it may not be the precise technical word for it werldwayd (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Hungarian irredentism. Jenks24 (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


Greater Hungary (political concept) → Hungarian revisionism – I think the debate was not ample enough the last time. "Greater Hungary" is not a concept. It univocally refers to the pre-Trianon Treaty Kingdom of Hungary (in the same manner as the post-1920 Hungary is also called "Trianon Hungary"). The phrase "Hungarian revisionism" is widely used on Google Books sources [5]. --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC) Avpop (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment "Greater Hungary" gets less hits indeed in the Google Books Search but are the two terms really the same? The territorial revisionism is a form of irredentism, while "Greater Hungary" is the actual irredenta.--Codrin.B (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Answer You seem to be right. Revisionism is a legal notion defined as an attempt to renegotiate and modify the terms of a treaty, which is in this case the Treaty of Trianon. Irredentism on the other hand aspires to take back national territories that are under foreign rule and seeks to achieve these goals either peacefully or by force. Avpop (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarian irredentism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hungarian irredentism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarian irredentism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes

PsichoPuzo,

it seems you don't know/understand some basic policies of our community. First of all you should read what WP:CONSENSUS is, among other dispute resolution techniques. Partially I accept some of your edits and I tried to integrate them to the articles, but some have the problems I referred, despite you are continuing reverts in a harsh way... I mention here them again:

- the term "Magyaron" has no real connection to the Hungarian irredentism (anyway this term is uknown in Hungary as well), reffering to it i.e. in the Magyarization article is accepted, but not here, because the scope is already during the times of the Kingdom of Hungary, and irredentism is something afterwards the territorrial losses of Hungary.

- similarly giving quotes that would also fit to the Magyarization article but not here, as it describes a different era, should be removed

- adding consistent references to see also restricly to considered Ukrainian-Hungarian affairs is odd, this article is much broader

- recurrently adding "Ukrainian" to Ruthenian or Rusyn designations are misleading and confusing, Rusyns were a historic minority in Hungary and just because today there is a conflict between Ukrainian and Rusyns as the earlier does not recognize them a distinc ethnicity should ne be imported into anachronistic historical context, when the term was not known or used. Both the article of Ruthenians and Rusyns explain their relation to the Ukrainians

- many of your addition has to be rephrased as it does not fit neither to Hungarian or English ortography, inlcuding massive linking to foreign pages

- any reference to Kovács Béla is not notable, he is not representing any official Hungarian forum, anyway he left his carrer and even his former party split, only notable and other relevant information should be presented in this section, on the other hand the autonomy initiatives does not come from him or his former party, in 1991 the was an official referendum about that question and the Hungary governments subsequently negotiated with Ukraine about a possible autonomus Hungarian region, it was a general subject much earlier

- reference to propaganda sites and fringe sources that you recurrently add to the further reading is untenable

Please instead of entering into and edit warring, here in the talk page you may/can discuss proposed changes or build a new consensus. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2018 (UTC))

Yours one point of view do not represents consensus either. Stop deleting sourced content, because its you who starts clear state of edit warring.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me, WP rules has not any connection to "my point of view". It seems you did not check what means WP:CONSENSUS, furthermore you should have checked what means really an edit warring, I kept all the rules, unlike you.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC))
Are you sure? Maybe you need to check rules? Because deleting sourced content without any discussion is on WP:VAND case. No references improvements request, no any other relevant action or started discussion on questionable sources. Only deletion of content with reliable sources.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Also there such thing like WP:BB for the statement like yours appellation to previous consensus.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 14:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes I am sure, simply you don't know properly the rules and how to apply them. Yes, WP is working with bold edits (but it does not mean if they don't meet some requriements or against other rules BRD policies cannot be aplied) and any proper source that may be also properly added to the article was not deleted, on the other hand I improved the section also based on your additions. I have to warn you, that your statement like everything would be just "Only deletion of content with reliable sources" is a clear misleading sentence since in the diffs it can be clearly traced what really happened and it is not what you are talking about. Also please mind - the third time I have to tell - don't call propaganda sites as reliable sources. The discussion is here, as well you were told previously about the things in the edit logs.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC))
You also should be conscious what you call "propaganda site". Because in your actions from log of article almost all yours edits refers to whitening of it despite the facts.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
I already referred above, and please restrain yourself and do not maintain groundless accusations, I am not "whitening" anything, I stick to the most valid and proper content in a neutral point of view, unfortunately you did not take into consideration.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC))

Injury

Still reverting everything, like the things told in the edit log do not reach the "ears" and on the other hand, not willing again to understand the point...

Ok, let's try again here:

1. Repeated question: why are you systematically remove "at least"? (the one you did not said anything contra, why you perform full reverts instead of those part you have a problem with?)

2. In the edit log you still speak like you would not understand what I have stated before, you speak about "HU Social democrats" with a possible reflection of their supposed point of view by your OR, but it does not mean if they sought their chance of survival in changing conditions that they would agree or they would not have been striked about the outcome, than anyway was not set in 1919 thus reffering to them by later events is again not proper.

On the other hand, you push if this sentence would be about the opinion of the Hungarian people, although the original sentence has no connection to this, it is just declaring that it was an injury for the Hungarian people, as it it obvious as such a striking loss of territories affected the whole population along with economy, agriculture, industry, etc.

We may discuss a possible new rephrasing or expansion of the sentence, but in this form there is no consensus for these new changes.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC))

I am curious how do you want to measure an "injury" in an "objective" way. Who exactly were "injuried" Hungarian people? Women who were granted the right to vote (not available in Hungary) or workers who benefited from better social and heathcare programs, higher salaries and lower unempoyment rate (compared to Hungary), Hungarian activists who were loyal citiziens of new countries and accepted the desintegration of the historic Hungary already before the Trianon Treaty or... who exactly? The situation of many members of the Hungarians nation improved From the perspective of a civil society. Surely, we can say that the Hungarian economy had to be transformed (like economies of neigbouring countries, but is this the best article?) or that some people had subjective feeling of injury and injustice.-Ditinili (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
My first question you did not answered. Probably you feel that you describe here neither the general viewpoint of the subject, nor symbolize the vast majority of the Hungarian opinion or representing the standpoint the Hungarian nation in the whole, regarding not the just the contemporary or present evaluation of it. Like Trianon would be a fair, correct something. I.e. Just being a loyal citizen does not mean support or happiness for Trianon, or the women with the right to vote I don't think the majority of Hungarian women becoming citizen of the new countries would cheerful and happy because they could vote, possibly and poll would have shows that 99% they would be against Trianon (to say nothing of, the development of such rights has not any real connection to Trianon, since a new era started in Europe - replacement of the old Kingdom system - and the former system was not Hungary's fault, since she had the most liberal laws comparing to any other countries in the continent, and regardless of the border changes also a renewed system trialed).
In this question, we have to regard Hungary and Hungarians and the post effect in the whole, that was a tragedy for them, not just measured by the state affairs, institutions or any domestic policy and resources, but the soul and the consequences all of these. You wish to identify some changes in the civil society and connect to something that has not any direct connection to.
I.e. the second part of the sentence put the whole thing on the shoulder of the "Hungarian revisionists", although the vast majority of Hungarians - without being "revisionist" or anything - diasagreed and supported the make changes against Trianon. If you have proposals for a rephrasing, present it here, surely we may find something that would satisfy everybody.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC))
I did not systematically remove "at least". I simply reverted your commit because the wording like "injury" is highly subjective. I will not argue about Trianon - if it was "fair" or "unfair", "correct" or "incorrect", etc. It is relative and it depends on your point of view. If you are able to understand that the election right could be less important for somebody then some historic ties, you should be also able to understand that other people could have opositie priorities. It depends on the value list of the particlular person - the civic vs. the national principle. I believe that we can find more appropriate and less emotional wording. --Ditinili (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
So my assumption was correct, you made your revert regarding the "injury" case, despite you did not revert only that but alss other stuff...I think it is not totally correct, if the latter you had no problem...I assume with a good faith it was convenient to have done it by one-click, instead of editing...You should not also revert content you have no problem with, it is not appropriate.
I see, but in this evaluation even civic and national principles have always had highly common "echo". Well, go on, present another wording for the whole sentence here, and then we will form it until both of us find it appropriate and less emotional.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC))

Greater Hungary is a term?

The last edit stated that "Greater Hungary is a term". That's not helpful, every word is a term. Maybe it means disputed term? Volunteer1234 (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, not a disputed term, but I did not understand your edit, what was the problem with the original wording? Greater Hungary is not a movement (but a concept, a denomination of the historical Kingdom of Hungary), neither "Hungarian irredentism" is a movement (it is better a concept)...originally I wished to revert to the former version, that was correct...what you wanted to express with adding "movement"?(KIENGIR (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC))
It's a small point, but saying something is a term is a wp:refers problem. The article is about the topic, not the word. How about

Hungarian irredentism or Greater Hungary is the irredentist and revisionist political goal to restore the pre-World War I borders of the Kingdom of Hungary. Volunteer1234 (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that Hungarian Irredentism is not necessarily equals with the restoration of pre WWI borders, but also covers smaller revisions of former Hungarian territories. Thus I would suggest the following:
Hungarian irredentism or Greater Hungary are irredentist and revisionist political ideas concerning to redeem territories of the historical Kingdom of Hungary.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC))
Looks good, a small change: Hungarian irredentism or Greater Hungary are irredentist and revisionist political ideas concerning redemption of territories of the historical Kingdom of Hungary. Volunteer1234 (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Northern Transylvania population

The anonimous user just changed the population number for Northern Transylvania in the article. Previous version of the article stated that population of Northern Transylvania was composed of 49.1% Romanians and 38.8% Hungarians. The current version stating that population was composed of 52% Hungarians and 41% Romanians. Since I do not know much about history of Transylvania could somebody to check what are correct numbers? User:PANONIAN

According to my source, Northern Transylvania had a population of 2 667 007, of which 50.2% Romanians and 37.1% Hungarians. It is also mentioned that at least 121 489 people left N. Transylvania after the teritory was awarded to Hungary. Perhaps that's the origin of the minor difference between my numbers and those of the previous version (50.2% Romanians instead of 49.1% Romanians and 37.1% Hungarians instead of 38.8% Hungarians). Anyway, the numbers as they are now are clearly wrong and the phrase where they are mentioned makes no sense at all: "other areas were mainly inhabited by non-Hungarians, for example the population of Northern Transylvania was composed of 41% Romanians and 52% Hungarians". If N. Transylvania is an example of an area inhabited mainly by non-Hungarians, it's clearly impossible for the Hungarians to represent 52% of the population.
The fragment obviously needs editing. I'm only in doubt whether to use my own source or the previous version. Perhaps if the author of that version would post here, we might reach common ground. I am of the oppinion that my numbers represent N. Transylvania's population just before the partition, while his'/her's describe N. Transylvania's population after the Vienna Award/Diktat (don't know which is the accepted word around here :)).Bogmih 07:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You are both correct. The Romanian census of 1940 states the population of Northern Transylvania as 50.2% Romanians and 37.1% Hungarians, while the Hungarian census of 1940 as 49.1% Romanians and 38.8% Hungarians. The current version stating that the population was composed of 52% Hungarians and 41% Romanians is the 1941 Hungarian census. You are right, it's clearly impossible, the accuracy of the 1941 census is questionable considering the political state of events at that time. LordRogalDorn (talk) 00:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

What is say is not verified by anything.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC))
The first part is verified by the official censuses, I found them in Rumania : 1866-1947 (Oxford History of Modern Europe) - Hitchins, Keith. You can also find them in Charles Upson Clark, Racial aspects of Romania's case. It's likely that a source is still posted at the bottom of the page since the previous version of the article stated that population of Northern Transylvania was composed of 49.1% Romanians and 38.8% Hungarians. The second part is indeed an estimation, but a reasonable one and was not meant to become part of the article. According to the Romanian census of 1930, Northern Transylvania was 49,11% Romanian and 38,05% Hungarian. The Romanian censuses of 1940 shows 50.2% were Romanians and 37.1% ethnic Hungarians. The Hungarian censuses of 1940 shows 49.1% Romanians and 38.8% Hungarians. The only odd one is the Hungarian 1941 census. It's impossible to have such a dramatic shift in population in such a short time without mass immigration or deportation. LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Romanian census was only made in 1930, and only lately with delay were published additional data of it between 1938-1940, but was not made in 1940. I doubt Hungary would make any census in 1940, There is nothing odd with 1941 census, even by your correct assumptions of the Romanian censuses. Many Hungarians returned after being exiled, or may sough refuge there from South Transylvania.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC))
Please check the sources I listed. Do you have a source for this mass return after being exiled? And about a mass exodus after Northern Transylvania was incorported in Romania again? As the 1948 Romanian census is close to the 1940 Romanian census in numbers. LordRogalDorn (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I made a check other places as well, the situation is as I described. Some issues about are sourced in other pages, obvious optations after border changes were made, even per official agreement by the two countries.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC))
Can you list the sources of the official agreements and mass return for verification?LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Surprising you enter into issues you don't know exactly, although they are widely known by those who analyzed the subject. E.g. [1].(KIENGIR (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC))
1. You still didn't offer sources for verificaiton. 2. Are you seriously going resort to ad hominem? isn't it a bit childish or lowly? given your expertise I doubt you don't know what an ad hominem is or that you made it by mistake. But just in case: Ad hominem is a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. In the slight chance that you genuinely believe your ad hominem: I could be simply more open-minded than you, not excluding the possibility of being wrong even when having knowledge on the field, taking new information for what it is and judging by its own merit, as a curiosity, that could be or could not be right. Rather than dismiss any new information, even when sources are provided, because it doesn't fit with my original preconception. Next time, please keep it factual and provide source, I have no interest in a charged discussion of witty comebacks. Or if you don't have a source, I don't see why you're against the edit of the page.LordRogalDorn (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
1. No, I just did.
2. Fully speculative, and the 1930 census was not dismissed but inserted, you simply failed to gain consensus some of your problematic edits.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
1. Where are they then? and why didn't you post them here? 2. You are arguing against a point I was not making, I was not talking about the 1930 census. I have reached consensus. According to wikipedia: "consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns". Since you are either unwilling or unable to back up your counter-claims with evidence, your concerns are not legitimate for they are based on empty words alone. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I have already asked you for sources 3 times I believe and you failed to provide, I believe this is more than enough, I'm not going to ask you again. It's impossible to gain consensus with a non-cooperative user who won't offer verificaiton for his concerns but at the same time is against edits whose sources have been listed. Until you can support your claims, this discussion is as useless as your words. LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
1. I posted here, hence your point 2. is null and void, and no, you did not achieve any consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
1. You know this isn’t true, you can’t lie your way out of this. Ever since I asked you to list the sources of the official agreements and mass return for verification your responsenses have been evasive. You have done the same thing on the Hungary in World War II talk page. At this point, you are simply reverthing because you don't like the changes. 2. According to Wikipedia's definition of consensus, I have. Please stop edit warring and also remember WP:BRD. LordRogalDorn (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, in WP diffs talk, your unfolded accusations won't lead to anywhere, and no per definiton you are disruptively fail to refuse the point, which may have serious consequences (to say nothing of you are completely ignoring BRD).(KIENGIR (talk) 13:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
My accusations are grounded. You said that you provided source, despite the talk page itself being proof for anyone to see that no source was listed on your part. I tried to keep it in good faith and asked you "where", your reply was "here". Unless you can provide sources for your counter-claims, this discussion will likely not go anyway. The reason I asked you to see WP:BRD is because you are violating it by filibustering.LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:CIVILITY, fail to WP:LISTEN, although everything is visible, WP:NOTHERE almost.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC))

Null and void, please stop filibustering and ad hominem. Provide source for your arguments against edit or stop the edit war. LordRogalDorn (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this is what you are doing and just proving right the concerns listed. Denying I provided a source just make a stress pattern on this, however it was just a courtesy from my behalf, it does not influence the outcome that concisely the 1930, and the 1941 census may be shown, as they were real censuses, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2020 (UTC))

You provided a source, but it is not a source that counters my original source. The only source you provided only further proves the 1941 census is misleading without the mention of mass immigration. Which you didn't do. We already talked about this but you won't listen. The 1930 and 1941 censuses were real, but so were the 1940 one. So why use the 1930 and 1941 ones when the 1940 are available and more accurate since the Second Vienna Award happened in 1940. If you only partially disagree with my edits, please mention which parts you disagree with and what kind of compromise you would want. LordRogalDorn (talk) 15:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Since this is the most recently active thread, I moved it to bottom of page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
LordRogalDorn, sorry, you don't seem to understand the catch and you are arguing and conflating things that are not even decisive or would related to the current issue on that means, as you wish to identify. It's not about countering a source, on the other hand you should drop that fallacious assertion that 1941 census would biased. Censuses are made regular intervals, they barely similar at any time, it has nothing to with any bias, i.e. today in Cluj-Napoca the percentages of Romanians and Hungarians are almost inverted like about 80 years ago, it would not mean e.g. the 2011 census would be biased. Again, I don't have to provide any source for your claims, because it is irrelevant to the current issue, it was just a courtesy from my side if you wish know more about subject, instead of original research and dubious assertions (and again, drop such accusations I would not listen, by far it has been demonstrated multiple times and places is really not my part, on the contrary). Again as the 1930 and 1941 censuses were officially valid censuses, they demonstrate neutrally sufficiently the situation viewed from the two sides. This page is not dedicated to throughly analyze the issue in details, for which we have already another article, hence a concise summarization is enough.
For the above mentioned reasons, I disagree all of your additions so far, except to mention the 1930 census, which is fair to be higlighted next the other offical census.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC))
If you don't have a source that counters my original source, then on what grounds you disagree with the 1940 censuses? and why you consider that disagreement valid? as in, justify your personal opinion with facts, otherwise it doesn't carry any weight. Surely, you don't think that the 1930 and 1941 ones are more representative when the Second Vienna Award happened in 1940. Unless something drastic happens, the population tends to stay the same. In the case of Cluj-Napoca, the Romanians were not allowed to move in cities while part of Austria-Hungary, explaining the mostly Hungarian cities and mostly Romanian towns in Transylvania. After the union of Transylvania with Romania in 1918 and its international recgonition with the Treaty of Trianon in 1920, this discriminatory law was lifted, and the Romanians were allowed to move in cities, explaining the population shift. If we however look at the region as a whole, and not only the cities, there isn't a significant change in demographics. Also, you are talking about a period of 80 years, I am talking about a period of 1 year, with a huge revert to the original numbers in the 1948 census, it's obviously far from the same thing. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Per admin discussion, summarization in full details of the problematic edits:

- the section concerning Northern Transylvania, the user added an 1938 and 1940 data, called as census, although it is an estimation, but concealed the 1930 Romanian census which is the root and valid one which results has been delayed ans should/planned have been published in 1934, but only between 1938-1940 is has been finally published[2]. As well the way of style of editing adding repetitive of according to is problematic. Hence, neutrally the the two, widely accepted anf officially valid censuses should be shown, the 1930 Romanian census, and the 1941 Hungarian census, which equally balance these subjects, as between 1938-1944 from both sides many population opted for each other's countries, or declared otherwise ethnicity in the censues being afraid of the authorities, etc.[3].
- The user modified another section, and changed the neutral sentence of significant Romanian population as well concerning Nothern Transylvania to Romanian majority, which is non-neutral and disputed given the situation that time was likely near 50%-50%. The Hitchins qoute the user also added here (and with this contradicting itself by this change), which confirms this, a copy-paste from the Northern Transylvania article, but this article's scope is not of that. Hence, the quote is not necessary here as the Northern Transylvania article is linked, and the article's above section has to conform with neutrality, since we cannot clearly tell who was in absolute majority. In other words, the user introduced two modifications contradicting each other.
- Similiary the user changed the ethnically mixed phrase the same section regarding the former Yugoslav territories to mixed with a small minority of Hungarians, although is is misleading, since Hungarians were the largest ethnic group of the area with near 40%. So this is again a non-neutral and invalid statement.
- To avoid repetitions, the user performed very similar changes in the Hungary in World War II article, where he/she removed the neutral refernce to the Northen Transylvania article without taking sides and changed to the similar problematic one as above. On the other hand, the former Yugoslav territories section there he modified the sources content by inserting conflicting data with the cited source, in which he grouped together Serbs, Croats and Slovenes as one nationality, but the percentages sourced tell otherwhise and grouped differently, so the percentages and the number became contradicting. Hence this has to be reverted also.
Please anyone who reads, if still something is not clear ASK, because it has to be obvious now for even those who are not experts in the area. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC))
- It is a 1940 data called a census, I provided the source for it.
- 1. The phrase "significant Romanian population" is not neutral. A 17% Romanian population is still a "significant Romanian population" so the wording is very misleading, especially when that significant population is the largest ethnic group in the area. 2. The situation was far from 50%-50%. The Romanians were an absolute majority, around 50%, while the Hungarians were 37% or 38%, depending on whether you believe the Romanian or the Hungarian sources. What you are asking is the equivalent of writing "the Germans and the French committed war crimes" on a World War II page to keep things neutral. It may be valid from a tehnical point of view. But pragmatically, that phrase is very misleading.
- It depends on what you consider an ethnic group. The Yugoslav ethnicites together made up 55% of the population in that area, while the Hungarians made up 34% of the population. The phrase "ethnically mixed with a small minority of Hungarians" was meant for the Carpathian Ruthenia region. Although, in the case of Yugoslav occupied territories, the Hungarians still constituted a minority, with 20% fewer people than the South Slavs.
- Your changes are the ones taking sides and using language as biased as possible in the Hungarian favor. Conflicting data? how is that even possible? Considering that it's the same source listed for the already existing information. The source itself also lists the total number of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes together as Yugoslavs. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- No trace of that census anywhere else, not any peer reviewed analysis, if it ever existed, reliable sources posit the 1930 and 1941 censuses.
- 1. Is perfectly neutral, significant does not refer to low percentages 2. We don't know exactly who was the largest, just that it was it near 50%-50%, your other example has not any connection to this.
- If it was meant there, why you put it to the Yugoslav section? Yugoslav ethnic group did not exist, it has been a promoted nationality. Hungarians were the largest ethnic group, one of the comparisons you promote would be with non-Hungarians alltogether.
- I did not made any changes to the article, you did, so your accusation is again invalid, unfortunately. The only thing I did that I agreed to present also the 1930 Romanian census. No the source does not contain that, and it is simple mathematics given some groupings.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC))
- "I provided the source for it", "No trace of that census anywhere else", I already provided a scholarly work, which is more than what you have done for your part, Wikipedia doesn't require 2 sources so there is no need for me to do it to please you, especially when you can't do half of what you're asking for your part. It's quite rich to ask me for another source considering that you didn't even provide one source for your counter-claims.
- Significant does not refer to high percentages either. If you are happy with this, you can say "Has a significant Hungarian population" instead of "has a significant Romanian population". Every previous census showed the Romanians as the largest. We don't know that it was near 50%-50%. My other example perfectly mirrors what you are trying to do. Your 50%-50% suggestion is the equivalent of saying "both the Germans and the French committed war crimes in World War II". It may be true from a tehnical point of view. But pragmatically, that phrase is very misleading.
- It was between the Yugoslav and the Carpathian Ruthenia section, I will edit accordingly after this. And ethnicity is whatever people believe is an ethnicity. Back then, there was a form of Yugoslav nationalism. We can talk about out personal opinion on this matter all day, with me saying that they were all part of a single country called Yugoslavia who was mainly for South Slavs, namely Serbs, Croats and Slovenes; and you saying that it doesn't matter because they were different ethnicites, the fact is that the source listed Yugoslav as the sum of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and I simply wrote what the source listed.
- The undo is still considered a change, if you wanted to eliminate everything that was inaccurate or impartial, you could have simply edited. But when instead of editing, you undo, you are responsable for that undo, it was still a change you made. Yes, the source does contain that. You are right in the sense that you can do the math yourself.LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, if you start again to say I did not provide sources, then this discussion is useless, and already told at the current issues no counter-sources are needed, you are failing to understand basic editing principles, and not having verifiable peer-reviewed sources is a problem at such level
- Again, "significan"t is appropriate and neutral designation to any direction, applied as well elsewhere. We have one sure census, the 1930 one, and again your example has nothing to with this question, the phrase is misleading per your edit.
- Yugoslav ethnicity did not exist, and the source listed also the different ethnics respectively. Your inventive approach is again resulted in a non-neutral allegation, in which by any means you wish to deminuate the number of Hungarians
- Sorry, I am able to read properly, and I undid inaccurate edits, responsibiliy was never an issue, on the contrary, not understanding and follwing our policies is a problem, you should not edit the article, unless it's not a self-revert of your edits so far.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC))
- It is very basic indeed. In order to make an edit to the page, you need to have a source. If you argue against what a certain source says, you need to have at least a source that questions the validity of the first source. A historian arguing that it is like that, and a historian arguing that it isn't like that. In that case, the most fair and impartial thing to do is to post both sources with their versions and let the reader decide. The problem in all of this, is that you don't have a source, only a personal opinion.
- Again, it isn't. Again, if you feel that way, then I'm in favor of stating "Has a significant Hungarian population" instead. If you genuinely feel that way about the meaning of "significant", then you should have no problem with this as according to your own logic its basically the same thing. It's win-win for both of us.
- It also lists them together as Yugoslavs. Where did I deminuate the number of Hungarians? They were 34.2% of the population both before and after my edits. Your problem is that I also stated that there were 55% Yugoslavs, breaking the illusion that the Hungarians were the majority in that region, which you want to uphold through omission. They were not the majority, sorry.
- Even when your own source contradicted you, pointing out that its misleading to state the 1941 census without the mention of the Hungarian immigration following the Second Vienna Award, you still refused to edit, yet again giving the illusion that the Hungarians were the majority in that region through omission. You're at the opposite end of undoing inaccurate edits and responsibiliy. LordRogalDorn (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- You recurrently and still not understanding basic editing policies, and with telling I don't have a source, only a personal opinion you are completely doomed.
- some other wording may be as well suitable, but better the near equal would be adequate then
- No, you are playing with words. I said they were the largest ethnic group and Yugoslav ethnicity did not exist.
- No, nothing contradicted me, and misleading things you did and especially the phenomenon you try to put on me, since despite you added Hitchins which do no take sides, you took. That's all about opposite end.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC))
- World War 1 started in 1914, this is the source; - No, it did not, you are destroying this page!; - Do you have a source for your counter-claim?; - You are not understanding basic editing policies, with telling that I don't have a source, only a personal opinion you are completely doomed. I understand common sense and the purpose of Wikipedia. At the end of the day this "debate" is very simple: I have a source to back up my edits, you do not have anything to back up your claims, personal opinion and feelings on the matter don't count. In the spirit of good faith, I asked you for them numerous times in this discussion. If claiming that you need to base your arguments on evidence otherwise they are empty words makes me doomed, then Wikipedia is doomed, but I highly doubt the situation is as you say.
- For confirmation, are you in favor of saying "Has a significant Hungarian population" instead?
- I know what you said. What I said was in response to that.
- Yes, they contradicted you, and I already argued in the comment you just replied to where they contradicted you. Yet again, you failed to address the argument itself. Until you can address the argument itself, we can't have a productive discussion. Pointing fingers at each other and saying "you're it" it's far from a productive discussion, so let's drop all that and stick to arguments and evidence for our claims. It's dead obvious wihch argument you skipped, but just in case you'll reply "I did not skip any argument" this is the argument: "pointing out that its misleading to state the 1941 census without the mention of the Hungarian immigration following the Second Vienna Award, you still refused to edit, yet again giving the illusion that the Hungarians were the majority in that region through omission".LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, not understanding or rejecting evidence, policies, or just denying reality does not lead to anywhere
- I already reacted to this before
- Again, your hyphothetic scenario to accuse me about such things I did not do, on the other hand you keep stating things which are not true, but better the opposite is really useless. You simply ignore and refuse to see some information (I did not skip anything). Censuses has not connection to other whereabouts, as their represent something at the time. E.g. we also do not investigate between 1918-1930 how many Romanians migrated to Transylvania, this is out of scope. Anyway the mutual slight changes of populations lasted until 1944, it was a relatively slower process.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC))
- I agree, please stop rejecting evidence and denying reality.
- You skipped this line: For confirmation, are you in favor of saying "Has a significant Hungarian population" instead?
- Yes, I know, and what I said was in response to that, read them in order and you'll see.
- I'm sorry, you just skipped the 2nd line then said quote: "(I did not skip anything)". "on the other hand you keep stating things which are not true", which is ironic, considering how many false things you said, such as a few comments ago "in which by any means you wish to deminuate the number of Hungarians", as I replied to you back then, they were 34.2% of the population both before and after my edits. No number of Hungarians was deminuated. Because the 1918-1930 migration of Romanians to Transylvania did not significantly change the ethnic composition of the region. In 1910 there were 53.8% Romanians and in 1930 there were 57.8% Romanians. Unlike our situation here where the ethnic composition was significantly changed following the Second Vienna Award. If the Hungarian census of 1941 is to be believed, the so-called "mutual slight changes of populations" turned the Hungarians from a minority to a majority. If the Hungarian census of 1941 is to be believed, because the Romanian census of 1940 shows 50.2% ethnic Romanians and 37.1% ethnic Hungarians. The Hungarian census of 1940 shows 48.1% Romanians and 38.8% Hungarians. While the Romanian 1948 census is similar to the 1940 census. The only odd one is the Hungarian 1941 census, showing a huge population change in a short amount of time that was just as quickly reverted back. It's impossible to have such a dramatic shift in population in such a short time without mass immigration or deportation. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:16, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, with this style you go nowhere, your first three points are completely useless, since you fail to listen and ignore earlier answers, you are promoting a hpothetic reality.
You apparently with your edits you do as a I said. Again, your assertion is based on what you believe, not what peer reviewed reliable sources summarize, we don't know exactly who was in majority, the number of them was near equal, and the 1941 census did not deterred from this significantly, and again, in 1940 there was NO Romanian census, as it has been pointed out so many times, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC))
Sorry, but the eariler answers were not ignored. You seem to be under the childish illusion that just because someone reads your answer, they have to automatically agree with you, so it's inconceivable for you when someone disagrees. I did not ignore you, but you are simply wrong. No matter how many times you point it out, your denial is based on what you believe, not what peer reviewed reliable sources. Ever since our discussion, I provided you the source for the 1940 census. The next phrase, highlights your flawed style of reasoning: "We don't know exactly who was in majority, the number of them was near equal". So, we don't know exactly, despite having a census? and even if you disagree with the 1940 census for personal reasons, at least you don't disagree with the 1930 census that clearly showed Romanians as the majority in Northern Transylvaia. So, we have a census we both accept that clearly states the Romanians in the majority, and you still don't know who was in the majority? Then you are like: "And because we don't know, let's assume they were near equal, purely based on what I believe." Isn't that a bit convenient? I don't think all of this is bad faith, but rather you simply cannot see your own bias and logical fallacies. I also love how you stop replying to the things you lost the argument to and start making false general statements how "you don't know what you're talking about as I clearly demonstrated" instead. It's unlikely that you will change your mind with reason and evidence, because reason and evidence is not how you got to have those opinions in the first place. LordRogalDorn (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
You ignored, unless you would not say I did not answer or skipped something. No, as it has been pointed out, you contradicted yourself with peer reviewed RS, with Hitchins. Sorry the arguments are clear, and you are a while continously WP:BLUDGEONING, and not just on this page, this starts to disruptive.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:20, 26 September 2020 (UTC))
Do you remember this question: "You skipped this line: For confirmation, are you in favor of saying "Has a significant Hungarian population" instead?" What was your answer to it? none, you didn't reply, another skip. Then you said: "You ignored, unless you would not say I did not answer or skipped something", without a hint of irony. Sorry, but you're not as perfect as you think you are. You make lot of logical mistakes, including this one. Sometimes I reply to you with the very thing I replied previously because your reply had nothing to do with my argument or you skipped that part, for example: I just debunked your whole "they were nearly equal" fallacy with logic. What was your reply? No reply. That was just one of many cases. Sadly, the movement you lose the factual discussion, you switch to general statements to move the goalpost. But I got the message, you are not willing to have a factual and truthful discussion so why bother. Hitchins does not contradict me. Unlike the source you provided mentioning a mass migration in North Transylvania after it became part of Hungary that contradicts you, to which yet again you gave no factual answer and refused to make a reply on your self-contradiction. This has been disruptive for a long time. Ever since you ran out of factual arguments and started fillbustering, and not just on this page. LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I gave a reaction to that, did not skip, and I did not made any logical mistake. The rest is again your personally virtual misinterpretation of the reality, in paralell what I have already drawn the attention multiple times, failing WP:LISTEN and continous bludgeoning and recurrent invers-accusations. From now on let's see what other will say.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2020 (UTC))
I was not aware there are other ways than response with text to react on Wikipedia, if there are and I didn't see, I'm sorry, I still don't know where to find such reactions and how do they work, so can you please confirm me in text, did you agree or disagree to say "Has a significant Hungarian population" instead? I just gave you a few examples of your logical mistakes previously. I don't know if it can ever come down to "misinterpretation of the reality" since I didn't bring any new facts up, just pointed out the inconsistencies in the ones you already presented. But yes, I'm glad we went past the ad hominem part and can at least agree to disagree, let's see what others will say. LordRogalDorn (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
My answer was: - some other wording may be as well suitable, but better the near equal would be adequate then
Again, I did not have any logical mistakes or inconsistencies or ad hominem, on the contrary. You simply disregard most of the things written and demonstrated and at this point no reason to continue.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC))
You said "Is perfectly neutral, significant does not refer to low percentages" and in the next messsage said "significan't is appropriate and neutral designation to any direction", so you agreed with the wording initially. And then I said "Again, if you feel that way, then I'm in favor of stating "Has a significant Hungarian population" instead" because according to what you previously said it's the same thing. You believe it's the same thing so we just change from "significant Romanian" to "significant Hungarian" and the phrase would still be just as neutral. I believe it's not the same thing and I gave concensus for the "Has a significant Hungarian population" version that you believe to be the same thing, so it's win-win. It was only then that you said "some other wording may be as well suitable, but better the near equal would be adequate then". So what am I to believe? that you first agreed and now you disagreed? that you changed your mind? My mind-reading skills are limited and getting mixed signals, so I asked you for confirmation to make it clear: "For confirmation, are you in favor of saying "Has a significant Hungarian population" instead?", whether you agreed or disagreed, all you had to say was a simple "yes" or "no". I couldn't have been that hard. But you just skipped that line. And soon after, without a hint of irony, said that, if I believe you skipped then I must have not read or ignored your message. You need to have a bit of self-awareness before accusing others of not understanding you. Not everything you did is the way you think you did. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, if you do not undesrtand clearly what some other wording may be as well suitable, but better the near equal would be adequate then means, and you cannot decide that I would prefer what I said and not your choices, then the problem is the same as usual with you, already pointed out more times above, thus drop such remarks like "You need to have a bit of self-awareness before accusing others of not understanding you.", apparently is annyoing you try to identify things in an opposite way recurrently. Also, mind WP:NOTBLOG.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC))
The problem was that previously you had the complete opposite stance, which was strange. I merely asked you for confirmation to make sure whether changed your mind, since your replies are not always the most consistent. It wasn't hard to reply with a simple "yes" or "no". This begs the question: why were you strongly in favor of saying "a significant Romanian population" arguing that the word significant is neutral, but strongly against "a significant Hungarian population"? Seems a bit of low character double standards. Ok, Wikipedia is not a blog, please be like a knife and have a point. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I have been consistent, with everything, having a point. WP:NOTFORUM as well, everything may read above.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC))
Sorry, you have not been consistent, everything may be read above. LordRogalDorn (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
You should drop finally these tendentious invalid mirror reflections.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC))
I won't drop these truthful and valid reflections. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
That means disruptive editing, unfortunately.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC))

References

  1. ^ A történelem tanúi - Erdély - bevonulás 1940 p 56. - The witnesses of history - Transylvania - Entry 1940 p. 56. - ISBN 978-963-251-473-4
  2. ^ http://www.kia.hu/konyvtar/erdely/nepszam.htm
  3. ^ http://www.mtafki.hu/konyvtar/kiadv/etnika/ethnicMAP/001_session_h.html

RFC

The last stable consensused revision of the page is this. As may be read on above talk, a few controversial edits has been introduced. Peer reviewed RS refer to the two official 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses and posit near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population in Northern Transylvania, without taking sides. A user removed the significant Romanian population and took sides, claiming significant would not be neutral, at the same time added the Hitchins quote copied from the earlier mentioned article, which is exactly reflecting the neutral approach based on the two censuses, not taking sides. Is really significant not an appropriate description? Or should be write instead near equal number of Romanians and Hungarians? Or we should just refer it like in the Hungary in World War II article like a total population of 2,578,100 divided more or less evenly between Hungarians and Romanians (depending on the census, cf. Second Vienna Award)?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC))

User KIENGIR forgot to mention a few crucial elements: There is no peer reviewed RS which states their numbers was near equal, it's OR. He is simply striving for a middle ground logical fallacy, sometimes halfway between truth and a lie, is still a lie. We disagree with the 1940 census for which I provided a source, but he agrees that the 1930 census is valid, a census that clearly states the Romanians in the majority in Northern Transylvania. Movements of people can indeed happen between 1930 and 1940, but unless we have proof that something happened that significantly changed the demographics and made their number near equal, the safest thing to assume is that nothing happened and just go with the numbers of the last census. I'm in favor of just quoting the census figures directly. Concerning the "significant Romanian population" edit, as we discussed, I believe this is very misleading, especially when the given population is the largest ethnic group in the area. A 17% population would still be a "significant population". He argued that the word "significant" is perfectly neutral and does not refer to low percentages. He didn't mention that I proposed him the wording: "Has a significant Hungarian population" instead. Since I believe "significant" isn't neutral, while he believes "significant" is neutral, we just change from "significant Romanian" to "significant Hungarian" and the phrase would be just as neutral, it will have the same meaning according to his reasoning. It's a win-win and possible way to reach concensus. The World War II part of the article is also under discussion for the same reason, but we agreed to only talk on one talk page to avoid redundancy. The phrase "more or less evenly between Hungarians and Romanians (depending on the census, cf. Second Vienna Award)" used to be "divided between 50% Romanians and 37% Hungarians according to the Romanian census and 48% Romanians and 38% Hungarians according to the Hungarian census of 1940". LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
You are simply playing with words, I did not say states, I wrote posits, this is what they summarize, not taking sides. Regarding middle ground logical fallacy and other strange remarks from your side, I would avoid them, given large and apparent examples of the opposite from your behalf, including much more elemental issues. Census validity means official validity, not the exact confirmation of the numbers itself. No, in that article not that was used to be what you write, but exactly what I quoted.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC))
Obviously, you did not say 'states', I said 'states', and my point still stands, because that's how Wikipedia's policy and reason in general works. Please read it again with that in mind. If you read it again and still failed to understand, I'll try to explain: The two 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses don't posit near equal Romanian and Hungarian population in Northern Transylvania. That is your own faulty interpretation. Regardless of what you may think or not think that they posit in your naivety, you fail to understand the way Wikipedia works. Wikipedia doesn't work based on speculation, everything you write must be stated by a source and must not be OR, meaning original reserach. Your near equal idea, is not stated by a source and is personal speculation, OR. So you see, I wasn't playing with words, you simply failed to understand how Wikipedia works. It is not a place where we all express our opinions, or even our personal reserach, it is a place where we express what documented sources say. Regarding the middle ground logical fallacy, please take the time to read it, so you know how it applies to you, it's essential to understand the middle ground logical fallacy to understand why your "near equal" assertion is wrong thinking. Regarding the other remarks that you refused to address by calling them strange and making false accusations to divert the criticism from yourself, I believe it stands as a testament of your style of reasoning. You make no arguments, only state opinions, declarations, that's all your stances are in general, personal opinions with nothing to back them up. I know what census validity means, thank you. And no, it wasn't exactly what you quoted. Anyway, enough of this nonsense, let's keep it short and simple, I'm in favor of just quoting the census figures directly, are you in favor of just quoting the census figures directly too? LordRogalDorn (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Your tendentious bludgeoning is tiring, and please do not preach about WP and it's policy which you apparently are not very familiar yet. As well, again your lengthy speculation was useless, since I never said/suggested what you are saying "The two 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses don't posit near equal Romanian and Hungarian population in Northern Transylvania.", so not I am the one who would had to read something again (the subject of the sentence was something else, elementary grammar). Moreover, your copy-paste summarizations as well are clear boomerang, at this point, I have reiterate again as in other pages, WP:COMPETENCE is required.
And no, it wasn't exactly what you quoted.->failing the verify and check a simple diff as recurrently you do is again a serious competence issue, and agree with being enough by this nonsensical way you follow.
On your question we are talking about two sections, I see no reason to repeat twice the same census data, hence at current stance, I would use ethnically mixed instead of significant, while below the officially valid two censuses, which I never opposed anyway.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC))
I'm more familiar with the WP policy than you are apparently. At least I know the difference between what a source states and the OR you are trying to enforce out of personal bias.
You: As well, again your lengthy speculation was useless, since I never said/suggested what you are saying "The two 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses don't posit near equal Romanian and Hungarian population in Northern Transylvania."
Also you: Peer reviewed RS refer to the two official 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses and posit near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population in Northern Transylvania, without taking sides.
You see what I'm dealing with? you're so bad at argumenting that your whole comment is a facepalm. Hitchins is a peer reviewed RS, and he did not posit near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population, far from it. And you never fail to amaze me with your double standards, you lack WP:COMPETENCE yet preach WP:COMPETENCE. Anyway, two other users already gave their opinion, I asked you directly, I'll take your lack of answer as an abstaining. So we have 3 people in favor and 1 abstaining. Just quote the census figures directly it is. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, apparently in several pages as a newbie editor it may be seen how you deal with policies, you again describe the things in an opposte way as they are. You are dealing with you don't read sentences carefully ("refer"), so again stop accusing others with facepalm. Hitchins does not take sides (48%-50% is near equal, btw.). I answered to you, so yes, WP:COMPETENCE is a serious issue with you.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC))
Liar, liar. This is what Hitchens says: "Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Romanians, or 48 per cent to over 50 per cent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used". He states 50% Romanians according to Romanian sources and 48% Romanians according to Hungarian sources. Stop lying about what sources said to get things your way, your low character is subject of Greek plays. LordRogalDorn (talk) 05:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I know what Hitchins say, (I can read) and I did not say else, read above, he is not taking sides, and thank you for your confirmation that 48 and 50 (and their counterparts, 52 and 50 or other little deteriorations) are very near to each other.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC))
You know what Hitchins say but insist on lying about it to get things your way. He did not say that the other 50% and 52% were Hungarians. LordRogalDorn (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
I did not say what you insist now, what I said may be read above, regardless of other ethnics, near approximations hold.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC))
It is exactly because of other ethnics that the near approximation assumption doesn't hold. I should also point out that 3 out of 4 participants already agreed in this RFC to quote the census figures directly, making this discussion redundant. LordRogalDorn (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
No, because the other ethnics are around 10%, hence from a near margin spread from the midpoint it would be around 5%, which given the other whereabout does not influence the assumption. This discussion - which you started in fact - is redundant as you repeat the same things, to say nothing of again inaccuaretely summarizing participants stance.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC))
Do you have any source for this 10% claim, or it's OR? As the "near margin spread" is pure OR speculation. The other participants made their stances very clear, that you fail to understand basic english is not my problem. A 10% difference is not "near equal". In an ironic twist, your stance is in agreement with the 1940 census. With the Romanian one being 50% Romanian and 37% Hungarian while the Hungarian one being 48% Romanian and 38% Hungarian, notice the 10% difference you mentioned. In the end, you still failed to prove that their number was near equal, and there is no point continuing this considering the majority of RFC already gave their opinion on the matter. LordRogalDorn (talk) 07:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, if you are unable to understand what I have written, or you cannot count properly, it is a serious problem. There is nothing OR, simply you are pushing a conversation in which you fail to grasp and understand simple things, but when I help you, and explaining further, you reject or invent other things, which cannot be even inferred from them, just you don't like the things as they are (this discussion was not to "prove" anything, since the appropriate interpretation of basic sentenceses is an issue with you, although they are clear, they stand for themselves).
"that you fail to understand basic english is not my problem" -> no, it's not me, on the contrary and you do not understand basically other things as well, I never said "10% difference would be "near equal"" (as well I never said between Romanians or Hungarians would be 10% difference, but totally another thing). So yes, this conversation has to end, to say nothing of you again the nth time you are inciting about things which were not censuses or just estimations, basically reinforcing the listening and competence issues I draw the attention many times.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC))
The logic of this RFC conversation is very simple, I'll summarize it: you argued that "Peer reviewed RS refer to the two official 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses and posit near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population". Two other users said to just quote the census figures directly. I agreed with those 2 users and drew attention that "There is no peer reviewed RS which states their numbers was near equal, it's OR". From that moment the RFC was over, 3/4 participants already gave their opinion on the matter, we are in majority regardless of your opinion and complains. You argued that "You are simply playing with words" and I simply told you that "Wikipedia doesn't work based on speculation, everything you write must be stated by a source and must not be OR, meaning original research".
You then argued that "I never said/suggested what you are saying - The two 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses posit near equal Romanian and Hungarian population in Northern Transylvania." except that's exactly what you did, re-quoting your first sentence: "Peer reviewed RS refer to the two official 1930 Romanian and 1941 Hungarian censuses and posit near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population". It's pretty black&white simple.
Then I told you that "Hitchins is a peer reviewed RS, and he did not posit near equal the possible Romanian and Hungarian population, far from it", you replied: "Hitchins does not take sides (48%-50% is near equal, btw.)", I replied with Hitchens' actual quote: "Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Romanians, or 48 per cent to over 50 per cent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used". He states 50% Romanians according to Romanian sources and 48% Romanians according to Hungarian sources". You replied with: "thank you for your confirmation that 48 and 50 (and their counterparts, 52 and 50 or other little deteriorations) are very near to each other", I replied with "He (Hitchens) did not say that the other 50% and 52% were Hungarians". You replied with: "regardless of other ethnics, near approximations hold". I replied with: "It is exactly because of other ethnics that the near approximation assumption doesn't hold".
You replied that "No, because the other ethnics are around 10%, hence from a near margin spread from the midpoint it would be around 5%". I replied with: "Do you have any source for this 10% claim, or it's OR? As the - near margin spread - is pure OR speculation. A 10% difference is not 'near equal'. In an ironic twist, your stance is in agreement with the 1940 census". You replied with "There is nothing OR, simply you are pushing a conversation in which you fail to grasp and understand simple things" without mentioning any source for your claims, only confirming the fact that your opinions are pure OR speculations. You also said "as well I never said between Romanians or Hungarians would be 10% difference, but totally another thing)" despite previously saying "no, because the other ethnics are around 10%" after I told you that "It is exactly because of other ethnics that the near approximation assumption doesn't hold".
It is pretty clear even from your own broken OR argument that the Romanians were the majority, with 48% Romanians (your words, Hitchens' Hungarian version) and 10% other ethnicites (also your words, OR), that leaves only 42% Hungarians in the best case scenario of assuming your OR is true and using Hungarian sources over Romanian sources. You are simply arguing for a case that doesn't make sense even using your own logic, this is why a discussion with you is painful. Whether you fail to understand basic english or have a WP:COMPETENCE problem is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the majority of RFC already gave their opinion and because of it this RFC should be over by now. LordRogalDorn (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
WP:WALLOFTEXT again, unnecessary repetitions, since we may assume anyone can read, and would not like to read the things twice or more.
Your summarization is again misleading and fails, won't enter into deeply since all neuralgical points have been already demonstrated/discussed above, even if you only selectively highlight some parts that you think would reinforce your assumptions/fallacies.
"From that moment the RFC was over" -> no, failure of understanding policies
"3/4 participants already gave their opinion on the matter, we are in majority regardless of your opinion and complains." -> recurrent failed repetition, inability to count/summarize user opinions (all participants gave an opinion, there is no majority/minority stance on the issue, again competence)
The user repeats an above conversation with selective comments, but just reinforced that he did not understand what I said and drawn continously from imgainary assumptions and conclusions with a straw man argumentation (e.g. 10% case), hence any reaction to this is useless, since the user's WP:BLUDGEONing behavior should not be endorsed (indeed we don't know who was the majority, and the other ethnicities number we may only just assume, given the fact they declared themselves also partially differently in the censuses, also not undertstand difference between A and B has is different then a measure of C fells to the competence issue, that's all about broken OR or logic, etc.)
"Whether you fail to understand basic english or have a WP:COMPETENCE problem is irrelevant" -> these are issues with you, and they are relevant, hence in more pages as well another editors cannot deal with you. As well, recurrently the problems are WP:NOTBLOG, WP:NOTFORUM.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC))
Thank you for this demonstration of your typical comment. The user keeps saying that the summarization is again misleading and fails, selective comment, without mentioning why or where, what is the misleading part? which part was in fact accurate? what else should have been added? and so on. Because, in fact, he has nothing more to add to that summary. Not only that he fails to prove his accusations of misleading, as he is simply declaring something, without proving anything or at least offering an argument. But also notice how he didn't question my claim that even according to his own logic, the Hungarians would still be a minority. The moment he has no reply to the factual discussion, he switches to ad hominems and personal attacks in order to move the goalpost of the conversation. He hopes that I would follow suit and do like him and then we can both forget the actual discussion. He even goes as far as denying that there is a user majority stance on the issue, despite being evident from the first posts. He doesn't seem to be the kind of user you can have a rational discussion based on evidence and reason, as he is willing to deny even the most ridiculosuly obvious things to get things his way, and his escape route from a losing argument is declarations with no proof or arguments. Anyway, I'm done, the RFC already gave their opinion and I'm just waiting for the RFC to close, enjoy your monologue. LordRogalDorn (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Typical, because of your recurrent behavior. I already told you after 3-4 explanations, rejecting evidence or checkings diffs is a competence issue, continuing is disruptive, what you don't see others do. Your mirror/inverted accusations does not not matter, you reiterate your already disproved and mistaken bludgeoning. Really boring, and one of your greatest failures is reiterated the 6th (?) time regarding user stances, like "He even goes as far as denying that there is a user majority stance on the issue", although I did not say this, I said something else, which may be read above, I think nobody enjoys what you do (regardless you wish to put that also on me, including no "kindness" or "deny even the most ridiculosuly obvious things", which never been my properties, on the contrary you have a history with them). Time to stop!(KIENGIR (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC))

Comment this RfC is not clearly formulated, and the discussion is a complete mess. If the users involved would like, I could collapse the "behavioural" discussion here - which is off-topic for the RfC and does not contribute to improving the article - and provide more concrete suggestions to reformulate the RfC based on the sources presented. What I would point out to begin with is that "significant" Romanian and Hungarian populations does not imply that they are "nearly equal", and that "not taking sides" doesn't mean that we should fudge the available facts - notably the presence of a sizable non-Romanian, nom-Hungarian minority population from 1930 up to (and beyond) the Second Vienna Award, and the population transfer resulting from the Award, per RS. I am not saying that all available facts are DUE for inclusion in this article, but any NPOV version proposed for this article has to reflect the actually available scholarship, not just the parts that seem convenient from a specific POV. Newimpartial (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

@Newimpartial:,
thank you for your comment! The RFC offers more solution, due to the questions complexity, not restricting to yes/no into one alternative, deliberately (all sources are present, already here, no need to complicate). Yes, the discussion could be collapsed, it's just an evidence of the problems mentioned as well eslewhere. Nobody said that "that "significant" Romanian and Hungarian populations would imply that they are "nearly equal"", this is what we may read out from the peer reviewed RS and the official censuses, leaving the question undecided, since certainly we don't know. The taking sides was only mentioned because the other user changed the previous wording to Romanian majority, which is POV. If check the status quo ante version of the article, it was almost fully conform with the criteria you describe here, however some modifications were already agreed, but the user continued edit warring and these were lost (which indeed will be fixed later).(KIENGIR (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC))
Before I comment further, is your peer-reviewed source Kocsis and Kocsis-Hodosi (1995) or something else? Newimpartial (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
As discussed previously, there is no peer reviewed RS which states their numbers was "near equal" to "read out" from, it's OR. Notice the self-contradiction, "we don't know" and "their number was near equal", how is it possible to assume "their number was near equal" while admitting that "we don't know"? He previosuly pointed out to Hitchins as a source for his "near equal" claim, but as discussed above, Hitchins' words don't point to near equal numbers. The wording to Romanian majority is historically accurate, according to Hitchins and the relevant censuses. The other user is taking sides by attempting to go for a middle ground logical fallacy, arguing that because "we don't know" it must be "near equal", not only this is OR, but sometimes halfway between truth and a lie, is still a lie. He tries to hide his POV by claiming the NPOV version is POV. You cannot make such assumptions without a peer reviewed RS. LordRogalDorn (talk) 07:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I hope both of you can see that this is the kind of micro-level debate I am hoping not to participate in. I have read the passage given from Hitchens, but the other source I have seen cited in this context (besides the census data, with which I am familiar) is the Kocsis and Kocsis-Hodosi source, so I was inquiring about its status. Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Newimpartial, sure. Btw. near equal or we don't know is not in contradiction here, since near equal does not specify a certain result, hence the level of uncertainty is what we don't know exactly, but we may assume. Hitchins as well cirlcing around this, but does not take sides being one a clear majority. Both Hodosi and Hithchins sources are ok.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarian_irredentism/Archive_1&oldid=1178099172"