Jump to content

Talk:Treaty of Trianon/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

about tte phrase "Hungary lost eight of its ten biggest Hungarian cities as well."

1911 Encyclopeddia Britannica

At the census of 1900 fifteen towns had more than 40,000 inhabitants, namely: Budapest, 732322; - today Hungary Szeged, 100270; - today Hungary Szabadka (Maria-Theresiopel), 81464; - today Serbia Debreczen, 72351; - today Hungary Pozsony (Pressburg), 61537; - today Slovakia Hodmezo-Vasarhely, 60824; - today Hungary Zagrab (Agram), 61002; today Croatia Kecskemet, 56786; - today Slovakia Arad, 53903; - today Romania Temesvar, 53033; - today Romania Nagyvarad (Grosswardein), 47018; - today Romania Kolozsvar (Klausenburg), 46670; - today Romania Pecs (Fiinfkirchen), 42252; - today Hungary Miskolcz, 40833; - today Hungary Kassa, 35,856. - today Slovakia

4 of the biggest 10 cities remained in Hungary 6 of the biggest 15 cities remained in Hungary

Strange list. It starts with "had more than 40,000 inhabitants", then lists Kassa as 35856. More importantly, fortunately Kecskemét is not Slovakia (what kind of borders would make that possible?), so if your list is correct, then 5 cities remained and 5 were detached. Qorilla (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your observation. It was a typing mistake. I know Kekskemet is Hungary Here is the source http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Hungary (Iaaasi (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC))


psychical aftermatch

United states didn't signed the teatry, because it is not based on Census. (Romania yugoslavia Czechoslovakia refused to held census in the disputes territories. (Perhabs they didn't trust in their own ethnic groups.). Slovakia hadn't Slovak majority (49%) Serbians were minority in the south (15-20%) and Romanians have weak majority (53%) in 1910's.

Speak about Romania and Serbia. They had non-western orthodox cultural background and backward poor agricultural economies. The successor states hadn't real big cities. Look the population of Bucharest and Belgrad in 1911. These cities were very little cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.184.193 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

""Areas with significant Hungarian populations include the Székely Land[29] in Eastern Transylvania and some areas along the new Romanian-Hungarian border (cities of Arad, Timişoara)"

Timisoara 1900 60.551 only 19.162 Magyars Oradea 1900 54,109 48 000 Magyars —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iaaasi (talk • contribs) 15:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Temesvár was 40-50% German, and Hungarians were only the second after the Germans, but it doesn't mean that a population of 28000 (1910) Hungarians is not 'significant'. But Nagyvárad is certainly a better example if one has to choose. Qorilla (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But that Germans were not the so*called transylvanian saxons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.5.202 (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, rather Banat Swabians, as the city is not in Transylvania proper. Qorilla (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Only saxons considered themselves as Germans in Transylvania. People from Bayern and Swabia did not considered themselves as Germans in the late 19th and early XX century. In 1920, their mother tongue was Hungarian, the German language was a foreign or second language for them

motivations for treaty

Should mention that one of the reasons for the terms of the treaty was that there was a perception among the Allied powers that the Hungarian elites or aristocracy had enthusiastically collaborated with the Germans in suppressing Slavic nationalities within the Austro-Hungarian empire before 1914. The main goal of the post-WW1 territorial adjustments in central Europe was Slavic self-determination, and those who devised the treaties generally didn't give much weight to Hungarian claims as a reason to prevent realization of that goal (or the goal of rewarding Romania for its wartime services)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

pov

This article shows just why it was important to free all the subject peoples from Magyar domination. The mix of self-pity and arrogance is breathless and the bland support for Hungary's disgraceful role in joining Hitler is shameful. 80.169.162.100 (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Distribution of the non-Hungarian population in the Kingdom of Hungary

What is a Serbo-Croatian nationality???????Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The "contradiction"

An IP editor asserts that this article is contradicted by Vienna Awards and Pozsony County. The editor did not start a Talk page discussion as the Template (and link) would suggest, so I am doing so as preface to removing the contradiction template. The IP editor's concerns are set forth in very short fashion in two edit summaries. The first claims that, "Vienna Awards says 'Hungary lost again the territory it had gained.' whereas this article says the boundaries were NOT the same." The second edit summary merely says, "same issue" as to Pozsony County. Diffs here and here.

It's hard to see the problem. This article describes a peace treaty at the end of WW I by which Hungary lost certain territory. This article says that the territories were largely restored to Hungary during the Third Reich, and then approximately lost again following WW II. The Vienna Awards were apparently the mechanism by which the Nazis granted the territory back to Hungary; and, as is pointed out, that article says that after WW II, Hungary "lost again the territory it had gained". The best I can tell, the "contradiction" is the difference between Hungary "approximately" losing territory back to its 1920 borders (as stated here) and "precisely" losing that territory (implied but not stated in Vienna Awards). The difference is trivial and not worth a template.

Since the IP editor did not specify, I am assuming that the complaint with Pozsony County is the statement there that Hungary's "Trianon borders were restored after World War II." Here I have the same observation. The difference is in shading, it's not a contradiction, and an editor with more knowledge of these items (I have none) can easily harmonize them all.

Summing up - there's a difference in emphasis, the kind of thing you could probably find in any two Wikipedia articles that cover some of the same subject area. I've removed the template. Anyone who thinks I've completely missed the boat is welcome to restore it and explain the contradiction here. JohnInDC (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are right to those conclusions. I would not say that it is only a shading difference. I am happy for the sentences to be changed, however they are, but those templates should be left up there so other editors can more readily see a problem with the articles.174.3.123.220 (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I fixed the "contradiction" by softening the language in the other two articles. They were simple edits. Next time please consider making such straightforward revisions yourself instead of adding cryptic template messages to articles and relying on other editors to sort things out. JohnInDC (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This treaty is a controversy and still discussed ?

About this sentence in the Political consequences section : The Treaty and its consequences are debated in Central European politics to this day. One of the main controversies regarding the Treaty of Trianon concerns the borders of Hungary.[citation needed][clarification needed] I have added these 2 tags for obvious reasons. I doubt that Treaty of Trianon has any controversies for start and that it is discussed to this day anywhere in the World in the last 50 years at least. Can someone please explain this sentence and provide a valid reference for this statement? If not, I will delete this, what only seems to be a biased sentence. Adrian (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica 1911

Online Free contents about Hungary http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabrit13chisrich#page/894/mode/2up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.100.11 (talk) 11:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous to say "Hungarian" cities when those cities were Hungarian of course when they were a part of Kingdom of Hungary and afterwards they wasn`t anymore (common logic and it is already said in the sentence "Hungary lost..." - Kingdom of Hungary lost it`s cities), add a reference for it and delete all other tags that still lack any reference. Adrian (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The ethnic majority in the bigger cities were Hungarian in Hungary. There aren't Slovak Romanian or Serbian majority in the big cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.104.41 (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


A-H Empire was not the only multinational state in 1867

Great Britain was also multinational. (Irish Scottish English etc...) English suppressed their language and culture. The other multinational state was France. Only 50% of population of France was French in 1850. The local identities of these ethnic minorities were stronger than french identity in 1870 yet. These minority languages based on different grammar and words. They weren't closer to french than Italian or Spanish language. French nationalism and forced assimilation grew the ratio of French mother tongue and identity from 50% to 91% in 1900. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.146.48 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


Russian Empire was similarly multiethnic country too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.114.153 (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Biased Article?

Is this article not biased in favour of the Hungarian point of view? The thrust is that the breakup of the Austrian-Hungarian empire was a bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.11.57 (talk) 12:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

independent Hungary

Hungary hasn't a celebration of independence,see treaty, Part 1 - IV:

Whereas the Allied and Associated Powers are equally desirous that the war in which certain among them were successively involved, directly or indirectly, against Austria-Hungary, and which originated in the declaration of war by the former Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government on July 28, I914, against Serbia, and in the hostilities conducted by Germany in alliance with Austria-Hungary, should be replaced by a firm, just, and durable Peace, and

Whereas the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has now ceased to exist, and has been replaced in Hungary by a national Hungarian Government:

In plain language independence of Hungary was given only with this treaty. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a large distortion to present the Treaty of Trianon as a kind of gift of independence to Hungary. Hungary ended the dual Monarchy alliance with Austria on October 30, 1918. Since then it has been independent. Some historians even say Hungary was independent since 1867, with a union in certain important aspects with Austria. What the Treaty says is true, it does not say Hungary became independent in 1920, just that it has gone independent. An then came the Treaty. Qorilla (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I've corrected the sentence. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Independence was not a gift, first intention of France and England was weakening of German, but in reality, Hungary became independent (dream of Kossuth, Petofi ...) at 1/3 of territorium. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
One could say: With this proclamation (1918) of independence was independence launched, but only with the treaty was independence set definitely. And Hungarian haven't a celebration of independence, only a memorial of Trianon. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a celebration of the foundation of the country. And there were millennial celebrations of 1000 year old Hungarian statehood in 1896 and 1100 years in 1996, also in 2000 millennial celebrations of Hungary being recognized as a kingdom and taking Christianity at the same time. There is no celebration of what you say because Austria-Hungary did not exist in 1920, it's a simple historical fact. Since it did not exist at that time, it is impossible that Hungary gained independence from Austria-Hungary(a non existing entity) in 1920. And that's with accepting that its possible to gain independence from partly itself (ie Hungary from Austria-Hungary). Hobartimus (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There is further celebration on October 23rd for the 1956 Revolution in Hungary and the end of Communist era in Hungary, they are at the same day because in 1989 the end of the communist era was announced on October 23rd. But the last Soviet occupying troops only left Hungary in 1991 so there are some issues with that as well. Hobartimus (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hungary has no celebration of his independence - see Trianon. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 11:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Till 1918 was Hungary only part of Austria-Hungary not an independent country. Kossuth Függetlenségi nyilatkozat (1849). Magyarország és a vele törvényesen egyesült Erdély szabad, független, önálló, európai állam. Reality only after Trianon at 1 / 3 of area.--Nina.Charousek (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Till 1918 yes until 1918, because AFTER 1918 Austria-Hungary didn't exist any more so Hungary couldn't be part of something that didn't exist. Hobartimus (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Please discuss cause and not just delete.--Nina.Charousek (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
You are now falsifying /misrepresenting sources (citing a source which does not say what your sentence says) it's a serious offence which is followed by serious consequences if it is noticed by admins. Hobartimus (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
you are not right, source 1000 % say: it establish Hungarian border in new hungarian state, that is first fully independent hunagian state since Mohacs. You do not need close your eyes before the truth. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I added an entry to Wikipedia:Third opinion. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 14:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What about Kingdom of Hungary, Transylvania? Cited: "Treaty of Trianon internationally guaranteed Hungarian borders, since Battle of Mohács". Hungarian borders were always 'internationally' guaranteed, Hungarian history is more complex if we want to talk about 'independent' Hungarian state after Mohács. What about the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom after Mohács? Independent Transylvania after Mohács (prior to the Ottoman suzeinarity, and this vassal state status was always altered during the time)?, moreover, we should count with Kingdom of Hungary (Royal Hungary) like separate entity with internationally recognised borders. And of course, the K.u.K. state (Austria-Hungary), It was a sort of form for "Hungarian independency". This sentence sounds like Hungary was not existed "internationally" before 1920. Additionally, Hobartimus is right, Austria-Hungary was existed till 1918.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I say Hungary between 1528 and 1918 was not an independent country, that is fact. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Nina.Charousek, Please, cite your source. Thank you!Fakirbakir (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
What about Transylvania? For instance under Stephen Báthory? Principality of Transylvania was not vassal state at this time. I do not state Hungary has been independent for 400 years (after Mohács) because it is not true, but it is more complicated, and I do not like "sweeping statements".Fakirbakir (talk) 16:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, Nina, your addition [1] is entierly ungrammatical.--Nmate (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
That is really not problem, I'm not only one, who edit wp. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
How dare you state Hungary has nothing to do with Transylvania? Transylvania is part of the Hungarian history!!!!!!!!Fakirbakir (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Transylvania was part of Hungarian history (true), but today Hungary has nothing to do with Transylvania.(true)
  • Bathory made a secret oath to Habsburg Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor - see Hungarian wikipedia. We can not speak about independent country. And I'm not sure if we can say Hungarian == Transylvan, the history is not so easy. But that one is easy. Hungary has since 1526 fought for his independence and only 1918/1920 won it, but only at 1/3 of territorium. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I need to correct myself. Sigismund Bathory's reign was 'independent' without Ottoman tributary (for a few years). Stephen Bathory paid for the Ottomans.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As I can understand, according to this discussion, Hungary gained it`s (full)independence after the Treaty of Trianon. So,...What is the problem? Adrian (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

  • When did Austria-Hungary cease precisely?
  • When did Hungary lose its independence exactly?
  • Can we use this form "Hungarian state" for Transylvania (in the past, after Mohács)?
  • When was Principality of Transylvania without suzerainty?
  • What about Eastern Hungarian Kingdom?
  • What are our opinions about "internationally recognised borders" in connection with Hungary, after Mohács?
  • How can we handle Royal Hungary like separate entity?Fakirbakir (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, that is like thesis writing, please make a recommendation, write my sentence so, that it is short, true and neutral. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:
—Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I have found a verifiable book source for the statement that Austria -Hungary broke up in October to November of 1918. It states that the revolution against the emperor started in 28-30 October, the emperor abdicated on 14 November, and Hungary was declared a republic on 16 November. Thus it appears that Hungary gained complete independence after its revolution against the emperor. The book is here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. There was no more Austria-Hungary after 1918, thus Nina.Charousek's claims are unfounded. Hobartimus (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Number of Hungarians that moved back to Hungary - clarification needed

About this edit [2], I have reverted it because I have read this Hungarian-Slovak population exchanges where it stated in second paragraph The Czechoslovak government planned the removal of 25,0000[17][29] Hungarian people from South Slovakia to Hungary,[17] but 44,129[17]-45,475[30] – generally well-to-do businessmen, tradesmen, farmers and intellectuals[25] - which contains 2 references that the number is between 44,129-45,475 and not 100 000+. Since there are 2 references that say one thing and 1 recently added that says another, I added clarification needed tag at that claim until it is clarified. Adrian (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It says 250,000 (not 25,0000). We should demonstrate other sources as well (especially from demographers as Kocsis's book). Fakirbakir (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it says that the Czechoslovak government planed the exchange of 250 000 Hungarians, but according to this 44,129-45,475 is what it really exchanged. It is according to this source 1, page 29. Also the source you presented states that 120 000 of Hungarians fled or were deported. Is it reliable to say that all 120 000 were moved by force? Which is the real number that simply moved ? Adrian (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
The Slovak number is totally unsourced thus we should remove it as well. I have refined the sentence according to the source.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This change is really confusing, this source states that 44,129-45,475 were moved from south Slovakia, not Czech republic. Currenlt this is the wrong representation of sources in the article. Adrian (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I don`t know, I believe that the best solution is to add these sources and simply say many Hungarians(as it was until Szeget`s change) at this article and at the Hungarian-Slovak population exchanges leave it as per your last change. There is a clear difference between sources to leave it as per your last change (100 000+) and totally disregard the second source. Adrian (talk) 10:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I inserted other estimations, however I left the numbers because the previous sentences operated with numbers.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Adrian (talk) 11:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

World War II

In the introduction and in the main text are sections about border changes before/during/after World War II. Surely this is not relevant to this article. Suggest replacing with a simple remark to the effect that the current borders match those of the Treaty except for the loss of the 3 villages to Czechoslovakia in 1947. Nigej 16:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hungary became an entirely "new state" after the Word War I?

Kingdom of Hungary was reestablished on 01/03/1920. This "new" Kingdom of Hungary accepted the Treaty of Trianon. Prior to Trianon, Soviet Hungary or the First Hungarian Republic or the "new" Kingdom of Hungary possessed the rights in connection with the territory of the "old" Kingdom of Hungary 'officially' (until 04/06/1920), however in the reality they could not validate those. Hungary was not a new state. It became entirely independent, but it was not new, the "old" Kingdom of Hungary was the predecessor. (more accurately Soviet Hungary for the 'new' Kingdom of Hungary)Fakirbakir (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Recent edit war on talk page

Please note that this is an article about The Treaty of Trianon. Nothing else. Nigej 11:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

But some people write comments about Aryan theories (scientifically (genetically and historically) obsolete linguistic-based belief-system from 17-18th century. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.160 (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


Recent edits

I reverted edits of user:HangingCurve because of clear POV nature of such edits. Claim that "The Allies not only assumed without question that the minority peoples of the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary wished to leave" is absolutely POV and unacceptable. Where is evidence that these peoples "did not wished to leave pre-war Kingdom of Hungary"? Also, claim that Hungary "lost almost three-fourths of their country's territory" is not accurate: firstly, that territory was mainly inhabited by Indo-European peoples whom saw separation from Hungary as their liberation. Second, pre-war Kingdom of Hungary is legally not same country as post-war Hungary. Pre-war kingdom was not independent country, but part of the Habsburg Monarchy. The treaty does not contain a single word that says that something was "taken" from Hungary. On the contrary, Treaty clearly claims that Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia are successor states of pre-war Kingdom of Hungary, together with post-war Hungary and it defining borders of post-war Hungary as borders of an new independent country. PANONIAN 23:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Indeed the whole article tends to read like Hungarian nationalist propoganda, which is perhaps not surprising, but somewhat disappointing. Nigej 08:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You agree? That must prove it to be 'true' then. Just goes to show that if something, no matter how inaccurate or incorrect, is stated often enough, it will eventually be accepted as fact. Read into that what you will. 203.161.145.42 (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The existence of ethnic/minority rights were unique in pre-WW1 Europe

The article did not mention that minority rights and laws were existed only in Austria and Hungary in pre-WW1 Europe! The first minority rights were invented firstly in Hungary in Europe in July 1849! But these were overturned after the Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution. When Hungary made a compromise with the dynasty in 1867 one of the first acts of the restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868).


The situation of minorities in Hungary were much more better than in contemporary Western Europe. Other highly multinational countries were: France Russia and UK.


See the multi-national UK:

The situation of Scottish Irish Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language, only english language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England.


See the multiethnic France:

In 1870, France was a similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to spanish or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools , minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public adimistration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period!!!


What about Russia?

Russian Empire was a similar multiethnic state as Hungary, without the existence of minority rights. The forced russification is also well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.77.20 (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed the article is about The Treaty of Trianon, not the status of minorities in late 19th century Europe. Nigej 09:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The article may not per se be about the status of European minorities in the nineteenth century, but these points (if established to be true) provide an apposite background for dispelling the myth of ‘magyarisation’ as mentioned in Criticism of the 1910 census. As ‘magyarisation’ was one of the main arguments the proponents of the Treaty used to support their case, these points by extension highlight the flimsy nature of this argument and the dire lack of any moral or legal validity of the Treaty. In this context the points are appropriate as they help to establish the fact the Treaty was a grab-bag of claims that was simply a case of victorious governments (and their allies) using their advantageous positions to unfairly claim the territory of a defeated and weakened nation. Let’s call Trianon what it was and not try to have it masquerade as some sort of fair and valid decree. If it is accepted that this is not a POV it therefore becomes suitable to include in an article such as this.Hunor-Koppany (talk) 06:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
Your reply simply shows the problem with opening up such topics. We get into the same argument again and again, getting nowhere, convincing no-one. Each side stressing their side of the argument. All completely pointless. We could equally have a section on how a small Hungarian elite maintained power in Hungary (eg. lack of Secret ballot) and the resentment that caused). BUT I don't want to start that discussion either. My point is simply that if we include these somewhat peripheral topics here, we'll never get anywhere with this article. It's already a rag-bag of attempts by extremists on both side to push their POV. My mark for the article is 1 (fail). Nigej 09:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)


@Nigej See the article about the British election system before WW1! There were no secret ballots in Britain before WW1, and there were universal suffrage after the WW1. And learn about balkan countries: Serbia Romania etc.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.3.81 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is but I would no more claim that 19th century UK enjoyed a democratic Golden age than I would claim such for Greater Hungary. MY point simply relates to a Wikipedia article. Taking the UK theme: take a look at the Anglo-Irish Treaty article under which the UK "lost" the Irish Free State (now called the Republic of Ireland) in 1922. The article is quite formal with only a small amount of space given to pre and post-partition issues. The Troubles are in a separate article. I am simply suggesting a similar approach here. (By the way secret ballots were actually made compulsory in the UK in 1872. Universal MALE suffrage (age 21) arrived in the UK in 1918 (excluding Lords, lunatics, prisoners and conscientious objectors) and for all women in 1928.) Nigej 18:42, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I must repeat: learn the details of the history of British election system, there weren't general suffrage and secret ballots in Britain before WW1. The system of universal suffrage did not exist in the United Kingdom until 1928 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_United_Kingdom#History

I'm confused now. The page you quote quite clearly says "The Ballot Act 1872 replaced open elections with secret ballot system." (poor English, by the way) WW1 was 1914-1918, so secret ballots came in 42 years before WW1. I think you'll also find that I said 1928 too. Nigej 09:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary did not exist after WW1, therefore your examples in post WW1 Europe are not accurate. Your Irish example is not accurate too.

My example was simply an example of a Wikipedia article about a treaty at about the same time. Nothing more than that. No others parallels were intended. Nigej

The people's self determination idea of president Wilson did not happend in Kingdom of Hungary, because: The successor states protested against the helding of democratic referendums (universal suffrge secret ballots) about the disputed areas and borders. (perhabs the leader elite of the successor states did not trust in their own ethnic groups???)

There was only 1 democratic plebiscite about the borders (with general suffrage and secret ballots) in city of Sopron and its sorriunding 8 villages in North - Western Hungary in 1921. (Where every polling stations were under the controll and leadership of Entente army-officers) The treaty did not based on the people' will, therefore the Treaty hadn't legitimacy behind it. The decision-making of Paris treaties were remindful of early-modern era primitive Peace of Westphalia, rather than a modern 20th century democratic decision.

This whole discussion rather proves my point. Nigej 09:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No Nigej, read it again and again if it is necessary. This whole discussion rather proves my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.3.81 (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Consequences

I removed the following unsourced fragment: Although the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary that were assigned by the treaty to neighbouring states in total (and each of them separately) had a majority of non-Hungarian population, they also included some areas with Hungarian majority (including areas with over 80–90% Hungarians) as well as some areas with sizable Hungarian minorities, numbering 3,318,000 in total.

It had no source since July 2012. After a later google search, I realized that it is a verbatim quote from "The Babylonian Code - Vol. One: The Unholy Scriptures" by Saladin F . There are 2 problems:

It is quite a important statement. I am pretty sure we can find other sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The same idea is affirmed in an already existing affirmation of the article: "Areas with significant Hungarian populations included the Székely Land (Kulish, Nicholas (2008-04-07). "Kosovo's Actions Hearten a Hungarian Enclave". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-04-08.) in Eastern Transylvania, the area along the newly defined Romanian-Hungarian border (cities of Arad, Oradea), the area north of the newly defined Czechoslovakian-Hungarian border (Komárno, Csallóköz), southern parts of Subcarpathia and northern parts of Vojvodina". And the demographic data are already presented atTreaty_of_Trianon#Distribution_of_the_non-Hungarian_and_Hungarian_populations. However I made a little change to the lead. Raysdiet (talk) 11:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Harghita, Covasna and Săcueni counties

What does this exactly refer to? There were no counties with these names in interwar Romania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Judete_1919-25.png Raysdiet (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

It is my fault. The source does not mention counties, it mentions only "districts". [3] (p 299) I mistranslated it. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that you respect the source now, but it is still strange. Apparently there aren't such administriative units (not even units ranking below counties (Plăşi) - see the detailed map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Romania_1930_counties.500px.svg) Raysdiet (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I have found "Covasna" and "Sacueni" districts however "Hargita" is still problem. There was no Hargita district according to the map. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I can see Săcueni is just a town in Bihor county while Covasna (Kovászna) is a post-1968 county roughly corresponding to the interwar Trei Scaune county and the Hungarian Háromszék County. Harghita County is also a modern Romanian county, corresponding to the interwar Ciuc and Odorhei counties, respectively to the old Hungarian counties Csík and Udvarhely Raysdiet (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Map replacement

I replaced Map 1 with Map 2 because Map 2 is a derivative work of Map 1, where there are added red Hungarian-populated areas. There is no reason to include them, as long as we already have in teh article ethnic maps (e. g. File:Ethnographic map of hungary 1910 by teleki carte rouge.jpg), which include all the ethnicities, not only the Hungarians. It is a little POV I think to present only the Hungarian-populated areas 82.79.215.211 (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Msp 1
Map 2

an interesting map

I have found a contemporary map (1915) about the early plans for the disintegration of Austria-Hungary. [4] I am not sure if it is a public domain. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

An interesting map indeed. But it would be useful to know who is the author of the map. In 1916 Romania claimed more territory than it is represented there . See Treaty of Bucharest (1916). 82.79.213.39 (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The author is George F. Morrell. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Photo from the Versailles

A long-bearded-man in the middle is Nikola Pašić, not Apponyi. Alexzr88 (talk) 13:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but if you click on the photo you can see that the photo is referenced in a number of places (including non-English wikipedias). As such it makes no sense to change one link. Best to find the correct answer and change all at the same time. See both had long beards. Nigej (talk) 14:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

File:1dec1918.jpg nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2014_June_20 Avpop (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Signatories

It feels out of place to put Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia in the "Others" category, since they were the main beneficiaries and largely shaped the borders of the treaty trough both military and political actions, way before it was signed. I mean don't tell me that Japan had more to do with this than Romania, are you insane? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.34.218 (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Trianon Memorials

How many Trianon memorials should the article contain? There are already 3 such pictures and the one added by Rovibroni would be the 4th. I also ask the neutral editor User:AndyTheGrump to comment. 82.79.214.83 (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I could be described as 'neutral' - I've already made clear that I agree that the image added by Rovibroni seems out of place, and adds nothing to the article to actually help the reader to understand the topic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
By "neutral" I mean not emotionally involved; you are neither Hungarian nor from the states that benefited from the treaty (Slovakia, Serbia, Romania, Ukraine) 79.117.176.221 (talk) 06:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Too much already about Hungarian resentment of the Treaty. The new photo adds nothing. Personally I'd be happy to remove some of the others. The article should be primarily about the Treaty itself. Sadly it is very lacking in this area. For instance, the above comment about "Photo from the Versailles" highlights the fact that the article doesn't actually mention Pašić or Apponyi (except in the photo description). Nigej (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
+1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.5.50 (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Introduction is just a complaint on the perceived unfairness of the treaty

The whole introduction tells how much Hungary "lost" because of the treaty. It is therefore not a summary of the treaty, but a summary of complaints about it, I gather mostly from the Hungarian side. Not neutral at all.

I propose we use this section of the talk page to come up with a decent introduction, that summarizes the actual Contents of the treaty. Syats (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You are 100% correct and I welcome your suggestion. Hopefully others will do likewise and we can end up with something understandable to the average reader. We must always remember that, of the world population, there are 500 non-Hungarians for every Hungarian, and so we need to write the article in such a way that non-Hungarians can understand it, having perhaps little knowledge of post-Trianon politics. Basic issues that need sorting out are things like the pre-WWI and post-Trianon areas and populations, including whether we should include Croatia-Slavonia in the pre-WWI numbers or just "Hungary proper". We could move the "complaints" to a separate article. Nigej (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if all the areas thing needs to be included at all in the introduction, specially not in such a big detail. I would suggest including the following points:
  • One of the treaties signed after WWI
  • Defined the borders of Hungary and the other states that were created from the Austrohungarian empire: Austria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Croats Serbs and Slovenes.
  • Made Hungary recognize the above states and renounce any territorial claims in them.
  • Set limits to the military capabilities of Hungary
  • Set terms of reparations to be paid by Hungary to the victors
  • Signatories, including the protest stance of the Hungarian representatives.
  • Criticisms: 33% of Hungarian were left outside of Hungary.
Furthemore, I would suggest omitting any reference to "beneficiaries".
The reason I think the areas thing should be omitted from the introduction is because it forces on the reader the assumption that pre- and post-war Hungaries are comparable. However, the kingdom of Hungary was not a the state belonging to a single nationality (people), and thus this comparison leads the reader to believe that the current Hungary is somehow entitled to territories inhabited by other nationalities. This clarification involves many concepts and points of view that are way too much for the introduciton. That being said, the changes in area and population are interesting facts from the Treaty, and should be included in the article, I think not just in the intro.
Syats (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


Areas

I think we can deal in 1,000s of square kilometers for the intro. Post-Trianon we have 93,000 which matches up with the current area of Hungary, but the current intro says that "the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary (the Hungarian half of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy)" had an area of 325,411 which doesn't match up with Kingdom of Hungary which has 282,870 for 1910 in the infobox. Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen infobox has 325,000 for 1890 (and 328.000 for 1918) while Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia infobox has 42,541 which with the 282,870 from Kingdom of Hungary gives 325,000. So we can immediately see that we have contradictions with pre-WWI "Kingdom of Hungary" having areas of either 325,000 or 283,000 depending on which page you read. Of course this is a matter of whether Croatia-Slavonia is included or not and what names are used for the 325,000 or 283,000 parts. Currently Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen has redirects from Transleithania (which makes sense to me) and Kingdom of Hungary (1867-1918) (which doesn't).

Perhaps we can use someone like this "The treaty regulated the status of an independent Hungarian state and defined its borders. The newly defined Hungary had an area of 93,000 square kilometers. Pre-war Transleithania (the Hungarian part of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy) had an area of 325,000 square kilometers, made of up of the Kingdom of Hungary, the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia and Fiume (modern Rijeka), so that Hungary had just 28% of the area of pre-war Transleithania, 33% of the area of the pre-war Kingdom of Hungary." Nigej (talk) 10:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Using only 1910 census is violation of the neutral point of view

Using only 1910 census is violation of the neutral point of view, as it shows only Hungarian view. To be accurate, these statistics must be complemented with the statistics of the new countries, like the 1921 census in Czechoslovakia, to give objective picture and reduce bias. I added one sentence into the 1910 census discussion to give an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.105.246.114 (talk) 15:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Repatriations

Did Hungary pay the repatriations specified under the treaty? Hugo999 (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The treaty did not specify exactly, just theoretically, the League of Nations determined it later. Shipping of goods were continous, since 1923 the payments started but never finished because of the great depression, the changes of status quo thus the nullification of earlier treaties, and last but not least WWII. I.e. those dollar-bonds that have been issued in 1924 in order to be able to pay the reparations were finally redeemed in 2013.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC))

Congress of Oppressed Nations

What exactly is the "Congress of Oppressed Nations"? It is referred to in the article and with a wikilink. Being capitalized and without explanation implies that it is a title of a real thing that should be known as an official entity of some sort, but the link is red. There needs to be either a separate article defining this title or it should be defined in this one. A wiki search yielded no results, so maybe the title is misnamed? A google search elicits a mention in an article in the Encyclopedia Brittanica as "Congress of Oppressed Nationalities", but no separate article there either. I've found no other google similarities. A wiki search on that last title elicits the article League for Small and Subject Nationalities, an article insufficient to explain the usage of the contested title in the present article. LisztianEndeavors (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

See: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/44054188/the_times_dispatch/ so clearly it did exist under this name. There seems to have been a Congress of Oppressed Nationalities of Austria Hungary as well: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/44054377/the_times/ Nigej (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
This https://www.newspapers.com/clip/44058792/vancouver_daily_world/ refers to both - the Prague one being called here "a similar congress" to the Rome one. "The Czecho-Slovak race has had to suffer yet another act of criminal oppression at the hands of its Austrian and Magyar masters." Clearly strong feeling. Nigej (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
You should create a new article with that redlink (and another with the alternate title containing a redirect), and reference those newspaper articles in it. BTW, I assume the Canadian article meant the Bohemians had conquered Serbia not Siberia, yes? Siberia is a big place and would anybody ever desire to conquer it? LisztianEndeavors (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Of course the Canadian article is just pure propaganda. However articles like this https://www.newspapers.com/clip/19233844/the_times/ do seem to show that the Rome congress did harden Wilson's attitude against the Austrians/Maygars, perhaps explaining the very poor outcome for the "Magyars" in the treaty, whatever the reality of the situation. Not sure I can create an article, it would need someone with much more knowledge than me. Nigej (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


Who were the real Opressed nations or people? Those who lived in such countries whose legal system did not even recognize minority rights. Just some example: Welsh, Irish, Scottish in Britain, the Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan, who were in super majority before the mid 19th century in France. (forced francisation of Paris) OR we can countinue the list of non-white Biritsh and French colonies, where the people lived without any civil rights.--Liltender (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's relevant. The point is that they called themselves the "Congress of Oppressed Nations" or the "Congress of Oppressed Nationalities" or the "Congress of Oppressed Nationalities of Austria Hungary", so presumably regarded themselves as oppressed in some sense. And we've seem many times that giving people legal rights does not guarantee anything. Equal pay for women is a good example. Nigej (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

In nationalist/chauvinist sense they were "opressed". Many of them imagined own country and even own army etc... despite many of the minorities had not even spoke their new artificailly created 19th century mutually intelligible common language. (like slovaks)--Liltender (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

There were no democratic referendums in the disputed areas.

It must be mentioned, that there were no democratic referendums in the disputed areas.

Trianon was against Wilson's self-determination theory,because it WASN'T based on democratic referendums (general equal&secret ballots). It was not a wonder that Czech, Romanian and Serbian politicians vehemently PROTESTED against the very idea of democratic referendums about the borders at the Paris Peace Conference. Czech politicians didn't trust in Slovaks, because only very few Slovaks joined to the so-called "Czechoslovak"army against the Hungarians in 1919 (and Slovaks represented only 53% ratio in Northen parts of Hungary). Romanian politicians didn't trust in Transylvanian Romanians, perhabs they didn't want to join to the traditionally seriously backward & poor Romania (the ratio of Romanians were only 53% in Transylvania). Serbs were small minority (22% !!!) in Voivodine. Similar to Romania, Serbia was also a very backward Orthodox country without serious urbanization or industrialization.

It was not wonder that the USA did not sign this anti-democratic dictate.

There were only one democratic referendum about the borders between Hungary and Austria: The Sopron area referendum in Western Hungary in 1921, where Entente officers were the leaders of the voting districts, there were general equal and secret ballots with electoral registers (or poll books) of the LOCAL residents, and every local citizen could take part in the elections over 18year, regardless the ethnicity, social status or sex) Some villages voted to remain in Austria, some villages and citiy of Sopron voted to remain part of Hungary.


The "national councils" were brutal mockery and caricature of democracy. They were organized directly to avoid democratic referendums , thus grab more territory than it was possible for them.


  • 1. There were not even so-called "minimal voter turnout"

It means that even few gathered people of a (single ethnicity "voters") in a very small pub/bar (as it often happened) could decide the future/fate of whole huge cities within some minutes.....

  • 2. The privilege of the single ethnicity, and the rule of ethnic discriminations:

Only the Romanians were allowed to vote in Transylvania, only Slovaks were allowed to vote in Uper Hungary, Only the small Serb minority was allowed to vote in Voivodina, and only men were allowed to vote. Hungarians were not allowed to participate in these strange "elections".

  • 3. The open ballot:

There weren't secret ballot systems in that "elections", the elections were held as public open ballot/voting, with the simple raise of their hands.


  • 4. Zero written documentation of the local events:

The "elections" of the envoys of "national" councils were not even locally documented, only the decision of the self-appointed and locally established "national" councils in the small pubs/bars.

  • 5. No Electorial registers / poll books were used:

These so-called "elections" didn't use any ELECTORAL REGISTERS (or POLL BOOKS) of the LOCAL RESIDENTS, thus it made the gerrymandering directly possible. None of the voters in the open ballots votes were identified before the voting, it was in sharp contrast with normal democratic secret ballot systems. Like the participation of foreign voters from other countries and from foreign settlements were common, thus many people take part in the "elections" who had not any relationship with the area of the actual voting districts or even with the country. So without electoral registers, even foreign stranger "voters" or foreign soldiers could participate in the "elections" (An open possibility for brutal gerrymandery) The participation of foreign Serbian soldiers in the undocumented "elections" of "national councils" was usual in Southern Hungary Voivodine too. Without electoral registers of local residents, a usually unidentified single voter could vote in many many voting districts, thus a single man could vote in many times in many places without any problems...--Liltender (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the first two sentences at the top of this talk page. Nigej (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


Tomás Garrigue Masaryk, the first president of Czechoslovakia:
"We had to choose between the formation of Czechoslovakia or a plebiscite".

Nigej, you don't like the words of your first own president?

"Only"

@Nigej:,

really? No way, it is a comparison, since the previous state was bigger, nothing to do with any POV. Similary, if a height Lion baby is only x percent of the Lion mother...I disagree removal, and really amazed...(KIENGIR (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC))

There's a big difference between saying something is "50% of the size ..." than saying "only 50% of the size ...". or saying "I'm getting half the money" as opposed to "I'm only getting half the money". The latter is expressing some surprise or displeasure at the situation. The former is NPOV. Nigej (talk) 22:57, 29 April 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) 20:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

First sentence

Quoting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#First sentence: "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject." and "[...] use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead."

Nonspecialist in this context is and average visitor not living in central Europe and not familiar with World War I and surrounding events.

Based on this, the first sentence should describe the primary context where the treaty fits: it is one of the peace treaties prepared on the Paris Peace Conference related to end of World War I, with links to the broader context. Essential preceding events (armistices) and major consequences can be then described in later sentences and paragraphs. See also the related Treaty of Versailles for inspiration and comparison.

The recent edits by Rjensen and KIENGIR inserted a specific aspect of the treaty as the first sentence: "[Treaty] reduced the size and population of Hungary by about two thirds, not just divesting it of virtually all areas that were not purely Hungarian, but leaving approx. 3 million Hungarians outside the new borders which was the cause of deep resentment in Hungary for generations.", which might be important topic for Hungarian visitors, but is not giving the proper context for others and in this sense is violation of the Neutral Point of View, more specifically this gives undue weight to one aspect of the treaty by placing it at the prominent place. The effects on the Hungarian population are extensively described both in the lead paragraph as well as in a separate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark5245 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, the first sentence completely informs the nonspecial reader about the essential point of the event (and it is not just a specific aspect, but the essential result of it). Thus your argumentation that it would not be the proper context or would just important for Hungarian visitors does not hold, neither violate NPOV or due, the information presented is a fact.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC))
The discussion is not about whether the added sentence is a fact, but whether it is appropriate to place it at such prominent place. Based on my above analysis, it is not appropriate place for this statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark5245 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The treaty has many aspects: it recognizes Hungary as a sovereign state, it specifies its borders, it ends the war between the allies and Hungary, it specifies size of Hungarian army, it deals with availability of Hungarian infrastructure to alies, etc, etc. The effects on population is one specific aspect. --Mark5245 (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, if the dispute is not about whether the added sentence is a fact, then the tag may be safely removed. Your analysis does not conclude it to be inappropriate. Hungary has been also before reconized as a sovereign state, she also had it's borders, the rest are other details, including many specific aspects, but it is clear what is cutting edge.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2020 (UTC))
Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute#How can one disagree about NPOV?: There are many ways that an article can fail to adhere to the NPOV policy. Some examples are: While each fact mentioned in the article might be presented fairly, the very selection (and omission) of facts can make an article biased.Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact establishes neutrality.--Mark5245 (talk) 05:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
You grabbed out from the context two sentences, although the whole inference is starting from the point if someone would believe something as a fact and claim it factual, etc. although the situation is not about this because - as you pointed out also - the material we discuss are undisputed facts. On the the other sentence you copy-pasted, there are not any very selection or omission of anything, since all the all the complete informations is present. Hence, I fairly removed the tag you put erroneusly, as It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given..(KIENGIR (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC))
The long term historical importance of the treaty I suggest is captured in the first sentence. Details about how it got there are covered in subsequent sentences. What's more the victors in the war knew what they were doing: weakening Hungary. The reliable sources I think are largely in agreement on what happened. The Treaty is especially important in shaping 21st century Irredentism and neonationalism in Hungary [on this see (1) "Memory-Politics and Neonationalism: Trianon as Mythomoteur" by Feischmidt, in Nationalities Papers (Jan 2020). and (2) 'No, nay, never' (once more): The Resurrection Of Hungarian Irredentism" by Beiner, History Ireland (May/Jun 2013). The anger in the 1930s led Hungary to form an alliance with Hitler's Germany. ["Hungary's participation in World War II resulted from a desire to revise the Treaty of Trianon so as to recover territories lost after World War I. This revisionism was the basis for Hungary's interwar foreign policy." states Eva S. Balogh, in Hungarian Studies Review. Spring 1983] Rjensen (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm here because the issue was mentioned in the Teahouse.
I believe that the first sentence should state what the treaty was. Then the second sentence can state what it did, and a third can point out the injustice. Mentioning the (IMHO justified) resentment before saying what the treaty was makes the article appear biased, and is likely to lose the sympathy of readers.
I'd prefer things ordered something like this:
The Treaty of Trianon (French: Traité de Trianon, Hungarian: Trianoni békeszerződés) was one of the five major peace treaties prepared at the Paris Peace Conference and signed in the Grand Trianon Palace in Versailles on June 4, 1920. It formally ended World War I between most of the Allies of World War I and the Kingdom of Hungary, the latter being one of the successor states to defeated Austria-Hungary. It reduced the size and population of Hungary by about two thirds, not only divesting it of virtually all areas that were not purely Hungarian, but leaving approx. 3 million Hungarians outside the new borders, causing  deep resentment in Hungary for generations.
Maproom (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Try this: The Treaty of Trianon (French: Traité de Trianon, Hungarian: Trianoni békeszerződés) was the 1920 peace treaty imposed on the Republic of Hungary after it lost World War I. It reduced the size of the old Hungarian state, and removed two thirds of the population. About 3 million Hungarians became minorities in several new countries, causing deep resentment in Hungary that still shapes its politics. ===details about the location are given later in the lead. Rjensen (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm 100% against anything that fails to mention that the pre-war Hungary was actually a part of the Habsburg Empire. We mustn't give the impression that it had been a fully-independent state. Nigej (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

I restored the original form of the first sentence because some information were already present in the lead section ("Its population was 7.6 million, 36% of the pre-war kingdom's population of 20.9 million.[8] The areas that were allocated to neighbouring countries in total (and each of them separately) had a majority of non-Hungarians but 31% of Hungarians (3.3 million)[9] were left outside of post-Trianon Hungary."). 82.78.135.134 (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

The following phrase: "The treaty builds on the fact that "on the request of the former Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government an Armistice[6] was granted to Austria-Hungary on November 3, 1918, by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, and completed as regards Hungary by the Military Convention of November 13[7], in order that a Treaty of Peace might be concluded" from the lead section may be moved to the article body I think to let the reader to reach the text about consequences faster. 82.78.135.134 (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Obvious axe being ground here...

Some of my best friends are Hungarians, but I'm afraid some of you are losing your perspective in this article. Austro-Hungary was an Empire, and empires tend to absorb adjacent populations. History tends to correct this process. I know it must have felt bad at the time, but no worse than it did for the neighbouring Czechs when they were absorbed in the first place.

People, this is an encyclopedia, and we need to retain a neutral viewpoint. We can surely state the facts, and let them speak for themselves. The article is about the Treaty, not just the Hungarian reaction to it. Please take a deep breath, relax, and let some neutral encyclopediasts tidy this article up. We will not betray your feelings.

Don't revert edits, work positively forward.

Also, the population figures in the lead contradict themselves. Somebody who knows more about it please choose one of the figures, and go with it.

Thanks: Peace and Love! Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Billyshiverstick:,
I don't see how i.e. Hungary absorbed adjacent populations per your argumentation, as well I don't see the Czech analogy, which was an Austrian deal much earlier Austria-Hungary came to existence.
I don't see what neutrality issue would be with the article, of course we are interested to keep all suitable improvements, if it really fulfills inclusion and other criterias.
I clarified the lead (on the other hand, it was not conradictive, but apparently in brackets there was a reference of the data of the pre-war kingdom, despite earlier the subject of the sentence were clear)
Peace to you as well!(KIENGIR (talk) 03:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC))
axes to grind? nope. Our job is to summarize the RS, and not tell readers what to believe based on our personal own values/opinions/POV. As for the views of non-Hungarians, the article includes the French. I have been looking and so far found zero RS talking about other ethnic groups outside of Hungary view of Trianon--so they don't get mentioned. Rjensen (talk) 03:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Nope. A very well-written, neutral POV, and most importantly, excellently SOURCED article. Your personal opinion is less than worthless on Wikipedia - all that matters is what the sources say. And reverted edits are sometimes necessary, if they are inaccurate, stress a non-neutral POV, etc., etc. 50.111.5.65 (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The role of the French

I think the phrase "French diplomats played the major role in designing the treaty, with a mind to establishing French-led coalition of the newly formed nations" is given an undue weight in the lead section. For instance the American, Bristish, French and Italian proposals for the Hungarian-Romanian border were not are not substantially different: https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/img/transterk-map31-j.jpg - the French and British proposals are almost identical, both of them include the railway line Satu Mare (Szatmárnémeti) - Oradea (Nagyvárad) - Arad. 86.120.251.89 (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

No, it is not undue weight, since French diplomats approached the most predetermined and hostile way the question, with their interests as well regarding in the Little Entente and systematically blocked any attempt to change aims. The Millerand cover letter has been issued just to convince the Hungarian delegation not to refuse to sign the treaty (stated in case of injust resulution would take place, that may be revised), but it has been identified a Fench economic interest was behind it regarding Hungary, after revealed even the initiator retreated from the subject. No, none of the French/British proposals contain the railway line you mentioned, and the British finally wished to revise the initial plans, and the American/Italian proposal would have included the Hungarian majority areas nearby, which the earlier did not, on the other hand the full scope is not just the Hungarian-Romanian border.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2020 (UTC))
KIENGIR, thanks for your answer. Speaking of the Little Entente, I have some doubts regarding the text from Treaty_of_Trianon#Treaty_preparation. More exactly, the phrase This led to the "Little Entente" of Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia, but Hungary was not included sound weird. How could Hungary have been included, given that it was created "with the purpose of common defense against Hungarian revanchism and the prospect of a Habsburg restoration"? It is not a surprise that Hungary was not included, since the alliance guaranteed mutual assistance in the event of an unprovoked attack launched by Hungary against any stipulator 82.78.135.82 (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Correct, corrected.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC))

The aftermath

This page describes the period till 1921, but some pictures are new. Some of results of the treaty are described in Trianon Syndrome, only listed here, not linked. The Romanian day is listed, nothing about the Hungarian one. Nothing about Trianon Museum in Hungary. My additions have beed removed from 'Trianon Syndrom'. Where do they belong? Many informations are in Hungarian only, I do not understand them. There is a big blank space here. Are current tenstions between Hungary and its neighbours result of Trianon or definitely not? Xx236 (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC) The German page contains two sections about recent events.Xx236 (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The Hungarian article contains 36 312 bytes. This redirect does not change much.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
No. However its worth knowing that there are no articles about Memorial Day for the Victims of the Holocaust, Memorial Day for the Victims of the Communist Dictatorships, etc. too, not just Day of National Unity (Hungary). Nigej (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I have asked for comments here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary.Xx236 (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Treaty_of_Trianon/Archive_3&oldid=1227963592"