Talk:Anti-Hungarian sentiment

Previous AfDs
This article appears to be a substantially different version of the ones at Anti-Hungarian sentiment which were previously deleted. (This recreation appears to be sanctioned by the closing admin's comments in the most recent AfD: "An article of this nature must be backed up by substantial third-party literature that addresses the discrimination as a whole. Anyone is welcome to attempt to create a new article with these guidelines in mind".)  I have therefore changed the redirect target of Anti-Hungarian sentiment to this article. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issues
The article in its present form has some NPOV issues which need correction. Statements such as "The governments of Slovakia and the Czech Republic have not issued an official apology statement to the relocation survivors up to this day" do not reflect a neutral point of view as they imply that the writer believes the governments should issue an apology. Such claims should be reworded and expanded with details on whether any third party is actually asking for an apology (and if so, who). Also, many of the groups accused of anti-Hungarian sentiment deny that such sentiment is institutionalized, or deny that it exists at all, or dispute the facts or interpretation of various incidents described in this article. These opposing views should be mentioned in the article. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the Czech government has already issued a sort of apology. However, I am not sure if Hungarians were mentioned in it. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Recently, the Serbian government also deprecated the massacre of Hungarian civilians in the aftermath of World War II . I think that it is a positive gesture which should probably be mentioned here, too. K &oelig;rte F a   { ταλκ }  21:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This article, as newly created has A LOT of issues. Many problematic statements without ANY sources and the POV is not very neutral either.Adrian (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Since the entry above, the article has been . Previous NPOV objections no longer apply, so I am removing the POV template which has been present on the article since April 2014.  If someone believes the article is still WP:POV then they should readd the template, taking care to use the   param pointing to this talk section, or a new one, with your justification. Mathglot (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Further sources
The book Hungary and the Hungarians (Matthias Corvinus Publishers, 2012, ed. S. J. Magyaródy, ISBN 1-882785-23-1) is an edited volume of articles, most of which document or discuss purported anti-Hungarian sentiment and discrimination. The book has a clear nationalistic (bordering on irredentist) agenda, but it is certainly the most comprehensive overview of the topic which I've found, and helps establish its notability for our puproses. It can probably be used as a reliable source for nationalist views on anti-Hungarian sentiment, and (where its claims are corroborated with other, less avowedly polemic sources) for factual descriptions of specific historical incidents. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

?Redirection?
The result of the third nomination was simply a misunderstanding. The article of "Hungarians in Slovakia" is only associated with "Hungarophobia" and does not cover the whole subject. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a moot point now that the article has been recreated (though under a different title). Speaking of which, could you please fix the double redirect problems you created through your recent move of this page? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Actually I do agree with the recreation. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Now I am asking admin help, because the 3rd result will be a constant problem. How can we fix it? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How can it be a constant problem? There are no remaining redirects from this topic to Hungarians in Slovakia.  In the event that the present article is nominated for deletion, you can discuss possible redirect targets in that deletion discussion.  There's no point in doing so now. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that nobody will understand that why this article exists. If you see the talk page there is a "redirection" result.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious to anyone who reads the most recent deletion discussion, as the Old AfD multi template instructs people to do. But just in case I've added a version of my explanation at Talk:Anti-Hungarian sentiment to the top of this page.  If you are satisfied with this then I suggest you remove your Admin help template. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have removed it.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A lot of problems! Unreliable ref used many times
This source, used several times (^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Hilda von Klausenburg: Magyarellenes atrocitások Erdélyben és Romániában: 1784-1956) was declared unreliable here. Adrian (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's published by the same publisher as Hungary and the Hungarians I mentioned in a section above. (In fact, both books share some of the same material on "Romanian Atrocities", sourced to "Hungarian National Archives, Foreign Ministry regarding Romania, XIX-J-1-j".)  As with this other book, I agree that we probably can't rely upon it in isolation as a source of historical facts, though it's possibly usable as a source of nationalist viewpoints.  It is also a good starting point for identifying further, more reliable sources, since the book is meticulously referenced. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But mass deletion is not the solution. First we should attempt to find reliable sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * But mass addition of POV, problematic and usourced material is the solution? This is a new article, best to keep it right from the beginning. If you find any relevant data to this article with sources there is no problem, you can add then without any problems.Adrian (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have checked the text. Indeed, there are/were POV issues. This article should focus only on the concept of Hungarophobia. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article indeed needs improvement and keeping the NPOV principle of WP is especially important for such a sensitive topic. K &oelig;rte F a   { ταλκ }  20:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No of Ighiu victims
There is a contradiction with http://xxx.com/xxx (link removed)

"On October 29, the 200 Hungarians of Magyarigen (Ighiu) were killed" Hh2013 (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks and you are right. The original source also talks about 200 victims. I don't know where the 176 families come from, but it must be changed.  K &oelig;rte F a   { ταλκ }  21:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

In Romania
I see this data was added, with sources:

In Romania, the Ceaușescu regime was obsessed with history of Transylvania and suffering from Magyarophobia.[23] Even the clearly Hungarian historical persons went through Romanianization in these years.[23].

Can you present the page where this date is located? Also there are some strong words like "obsessed" and I want to check it with the reference. Also this part ''Even the clearly Hungarian historical persons went through Romanianization in these years.[23]. '' - I don`t understand this statement. What did you wanted to say? Adrian (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Another statement with source, but problematic? not in the source?

Transylvanian nationalists of Romanian background, citing Nicolae Ceaușescu as their favorite ideology figure, often propagate views that could be interpreted as antisemitic and anti-Hungarian in general.[4][need quotation to verify][dubious – discuss]

Can you present the page from the source here too? Adrian (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

History section
Also I see a problematic statement, possible POV.

''In the 18th century, after the end of the Rákóczi's War of Independence, mass of newcomers (mainly Germans, Serbs and Romanians) came to the southern parts of Kingdom of Hungary. This organized resettlement was planned by the Habsburgs, intended against the ethnic Hungarians,[6][7]''

Can you present where in the source it states this data? Where in the source it states that mass of newcomers (mainly Germans, Serbs and Romanians) came to the southern parts of Kingdom of Hungary? Thanks. Adrian (talk) 14:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The first sentence has no source (yet) because it is an obvious information. See Demographics of Hungary. It is just the "prelude". 800 new german villages were established in the 18th century at the southern parts of the country, ethnic Hungarians were not allowed to return until the 1740s (see:Banat of Temeswar), Habsburg administration obviously preferred other ethnicities instead of Hungarians. But if you want I am going to provide sources about it. The citation for the second sentence is coming soon. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I think that is a little POV because it starts the whole problem "who came when" and that kind of stuff...and this should be an article about Anti-Hungarianism, not about when and who settled. Please provide a source for it or delete it. This is a very sensitive article, for every statement please provide reliable sources. Adrian (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, adequate sources should be provided. On the other hand, I think that it is well-known that the Habsburgs regarded the Hungarians as "politically unreliable" and thus, their "reconstruction" policy was to settle, where possible, non-Hungarians in areas devastated during the Turkish wars, e.g., . Please, note that it is not exactly a "who came first" type of question, since this claim does not imply that previously only Hungarians lived in those territories which were devastated (obviously, others lived there, as well).  K &oelig;rte F a   { ταλκ }  15:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: A possible source for the first sentence: . K &oelig;rte F a   { ταλκ }  15:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree, but when there is one sentence about this only saying " mass of newcomers (mainly Germans, Serbs and Romanians) came to the southern parts of Kingdom of Hungary" you get the impresion that Germans and etc came there for the first time. From this, I get this impression. I believe other readers might as well. If unsourced it should be deleted. Not everyone knows about the areas devastated by the Turkish wars.Adrian (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The section absolutely does not mention such important roots of Anti-Hungarian sentiments like magyarization, interwar revisionism, policies applied on the occupied territories during WWII, etc. I don't like to discuss neutrality of sentences like "skilfull manipulation" of "Habsburg ruler and his advisers". However, the current section really cannot explain these sentiments and it cannot be accepted as a neutral or balanced. Ditinili (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced quote
I removed the text: "Transylvanian nationalists of Romanian background, citing Nicolae Ceaușescu as their favorite ideology figure, often propagate views that could be interpreted as antisemitic and anti-Hungarian in general" because:


 * The given source does not seem to contain something like this
 * The present tense that is used is problematic. The book was written in 1989, 14 years ago, so it certainly does not refer to the current time

Of course that a rephrased version of this statament can be re-added, if the precise page is provided 82.79.215.211 (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, is it 2003 already? How time flies… —Psychonaut (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL. you are right, it is 24 years. My arithmetic is not the best this morning 82.79.215.211 (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
Dozsa (Gheorghe Doja) is described everywhere as a secui (=Szekely) I don't think anyone ever presented him as an ethnic Romanian 79.117.168.196 (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, the source is about the treatments of Hungarian historical persons in Communist Romania. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Above there are linked some Romanian Communist books and all of them tell that Dozsa was a Szekely, they don't hide the truth. I think the opposite happened. Some Hungarian authors made an effort of de-Romananianization of John Hunyadi, by claiming he was Cuman instead of Vlach, defying historical sources. I invite User:Biruitorul, User:Eurocentral, User:Iadrian yu and User:Codrinb to express their opinions about the phrase Even the Hungarian historical persons (such as John Hunyadi or György Dózsa)[29] went through Romanianization in these years that I find at least dubious. The only thing that was Romanianized was their names, but this kind of adaptation occurs in any language.


 * A similar edit was made at John Hunyadi article. I don't understand what this this phrase refers to. Most authors (even the non-Romanians) affirm that Hunyadi was an ethnic Vlach/Romanian.


 * PS. I am not trying to influence the consensus by inviting Romanian editors to the discussion, if you consider it useful you are free to invite any Hungarian editors that you think would help to clarify the issue. 79.117.175.228 (talk) 09:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

About Dozsa in the Romanian communist hitoriography:. What does the Romanianization of Dozsa exactly consists of? Cause I wasn't able to find any source where he is described as an ethnic Romanian. 79.117.175.4 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "...Hungarian diplomats also complained that the Romanians were "appropriating" their national heroes. One of the bitterest conflicts came with the 1970 celebration of the anniversary of Gheorghe Doja, the sixteenth century peasant rebel. Known in Hungary as Gyorgy Dozsa, he had long been portrayed by Hungarian communists as their spiritual predecessor in the struggle for national and social liberation. Hungarian embassy officials were therefore horrified when Romanian government claimed that he was Romanian....." (Robert Knight, Ethnicity, Nationalism and the European Cold War, p. 109) - comment by User:Fakirbakir
 * I agree about the appropriation of Dozsa by Romanians (for instance a number of streets in several cities of Romania were named Gheorghe Doja - even in my town from Wallachia that is totally unrelated to Dozsa), but I am very skeptical about his illustration as an etnic Romanian. Look at this books from the 1970s (from the period you are talking about above) where the authors clearly state that he was a Szekely: [ [[Special:Contributions/79.117.163.82|79.117.163.82]] (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

And about Hunyadi: was also Pope Pius II a Hungarophobe when he wrote that "Hunyadi did not increase so much the glory of the Hungarians, but especially the glory of the Romanians among whom he was born"? 86.127.31.70 (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * John F. Kennedy was an Irish descendant. But, nobody cares about it, he is not part of Irish history. He belongs to American history. Hunyadi's father came to Kingdom of Hungary from Wallachia but this fact does not really count because the Hunyadi family became a Hungarian noble family (ethnicity did not matter in that time, there were nobles and peasants). Hunyadi was of Romanian stock. That is all. Communist Romanian historiography was badly nationalistic and tried to appropriate Hungarian historical persons (e.g. Transylvanian voivodes..). It also attempted to remove the non-Romanian elements from history of Transylvania. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I propose then the revision of the text you added here into "John Hunyadi, a hero of Hungary, was subordinated to the ideology of National Communism and transmuted into a hero of Romania." which eliminates any confusion. 86.127.31.70 (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Bilingual signs in Slovakia
Here is the source why I deleted a sentence at section of Slovakia. The Slovak government has just voted against the bilingual signs at the railway stations. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Albanophobia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI: this discussion was closed on June 22. The issue of the title of the Hungarophobia article should be taken up separately. Mathglot (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Title rename
Whatever one's feelings about the concept, the article should be renamed Anti-Hungarian sentiment or perhaps better Anti-Hungarianism based on the fact that the gloss "Hungarophobia" hardly exists in the wild, and is virtually unknown in reliable sources.

The title of an article needs to reflect a concept (word or expression) as it is used in reliable sources. The term "Hungarophobia" is notably absent from them, and to keep this as the article title based on the preferences of WP editors is pure, unsupported, original research.

In support of this, I did a test: I performed some double-quoted searches in Google for the following terms I have never seen before to see what the search result count would be, and I also checked whether WP has an article for them, and whether it's a redirect or the main article title. Note how the result counts below compare to the 464 hits for "Hungarophobia" (of which 57 are copies of WP so about 400 non-WP mirror hits for "Hungarophobia"). Any search terms which have corresponding WP articles are indicated: As shown, only three of them have articles on WP, and in each case the search term is a redirect to an article Anti- , and those three have from 5 to 55 times as many occurences online as "Hungarophobia" does. This article, in fact, may be the only -ophobia article on Wikipedia. In addition, there are 1,010 hits for "anti-hungarianism" (and 197 without the hyphen, so 1200 total). These facts tend to strongly support a title change. Mathglot (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * americaphobia 4940
 * australiaphobia 2160
 * bulgarophobia 521
 * canadaphobia 27,100 : Redir to Anti-Canadianism
 * croatophobia 323
 * dubaiphobia 200
 * egyptophobia 335
 * israelophobia 2170 : Redir to Anti-Zionism
 * saudiphobia 1480
 * turkophobia 2750 : Redir to Anti-Turkism


 * This hasn't garnered any debate in the last nine months, so widening the net. Even your dont-care vote would be valuable, to balance those who feel strongly one way or the other. Tl;dr: 'Hungarophobia' barely exists in the wild, whereas 'Anti-hungarian sentiment' and 'Anti-hungarianism' both have small, but measurable attestations in reliable sources, so the article should be renamed.


 * Pinging contributors to the Talk:Albanophobia discussion as well as non-IP user, non-trivial, non-bot edits in the last three years at Hungarophobia : eager to hear your thoughts.


 * Note: this is strictly about the proposed rename of the Hungarophobia article, and there is no intent here to push for a false consistency with other article titles.  My argument in favor of a move to Anti-Hungarian sentiment is that this is supported by the evidence (see above) and by WP guidelines about reliable sources and verifiability.  A consensus to rename this article would in no way establish any kind of precedent about the proposed move of any other article.  They each would have to go through the same requirements of evidence and reliable sources, and the results might be completely different. Mathglot (talk) 23:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What other forms of anti-nationalism are called is not relevant. We seek the common name of this subject. By that logic, the title should be "anti-Hungarian sentiment" per this ngram. Gulangyu (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Mathglot, at this point in time i would say also to do a google books and google scholar search. In the Albanophobia article i said that Ngram sometimes does not pick up sometimes certain terms. In the end the policy (WP:GOOG) does cite that google books and google scholar are results most to be taken into account due to them being overwhelming scholarly sources. Have a search of those. Hope that helps. Best.Resnjari (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOG is just an essay and it doesn't say anything like what you claiming. "Hungarophobia" gets 74 hits on Gbooks, but yields only three pages of results (i.e. 30 books). So more than half the hits are "ghosts." This is a common problem and it is something that Ngram was created to address. The ghosting problem is even more serious when the search term contains multiple words. Google search can't compare a single word search term like "Hungarophobia" to a multiple word search term like "anti-Hungarian sentiment" -- that's apples and oranges. Gulangyu (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, so its an essay that lays out the Wikipedia guidelines to sort things like this. It still refers to google books and google scholar as being the main two in referring to these types of matters. I still see nothing that puts Ngram above google books or scholar. I made my point about Ngram having its issues. Anyway for here, those wanting to keep or change need to make the case. At this point in time i am just an observer.Best. Resnjari (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I vote in favour of renaming the article, as suggested. Ehrenkater (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So the Hungarophobia example didn't shake your faith in hit count numbers? I'll try again. "anti-Hungarian sentiment" gives me 902 hits on GBooks. But the final result is on the fifth page. That makes 41 books. Not only that, but the listings on the fourth and fifth pages are irrelevant. To recap, the ghosting ratio was 74:30 in the Hungarophobia example. As you can see from this example, multi-word search terms are far more seriously ghosted than single word searches. There is no predictable relationship between the hit count and the number of results the search engine actually found. Hit counts are incidental to the function of a search engine. Ngram was created specifically to address known problems with them. Gulangyu (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * hehe. You got me convinced this time. Google books works a charm. Always the scholarship as last resort to confirm beyond doubt. Ok, my vote is Support proposed change of article title. I am still for the position that all of these types of articles though should be taken on a case by case basis for name changes. Best.Resnjari (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I am iterating my support for the RM closure at Talk:Albanophobia that title changes should be on a case-by-case basis and not on the basis of consistency not support in sources. Any specific moves supported by others are fine with me.  —  AjaxSmack   14:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Good responses all; I'm lurking and watching. While I'm here, a minor comment re Ngrams: you may not have noticed that my 27 June post had ngrams linked in it, but thanks for the suggestion, as we agree. By the way, Ngrams have their own issues and you can get a different picture by altering the start date, by changing smoothing to 0, or by setting case-insensitive, depending what you're trying to show.

So far at least, everyone seems to agree that each case should be considered separately, and that's a good thing. Keep the good feedback coming! Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyone? Mathglot (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, Karady's and Ban's books are reliable sources too. They use the term "Hungarophobia". They are both historians. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


 * They're reliable, perhaps, as far as facts are concerned, but not as an arbiter of proper usage in English.
 * Sociologist Victor Karády writes in Hungarian and French; his books appearing in English are translated.
 * András Bán wrote in Hungarian; his books in English are translated. (Someone else with the same name has a Hungarian Wikipedia article, but the historian (b. 1962, d. 2001) does not.)
 * Neither one of them has an English Wikipedia article, and neither one of them is a reliable source about usage of rare words in English. A translator trying to respect an author's intent, may use a cognate when available to remain close to the author's original word but that is not the same thing as a historian writing original material in English.  (And as it happens, the same translator translated both books.)  The words Hungarian-speaking Bán and Karády use in their Hungarian works may bring some weight to a similar discussion about how an article on Hungarian Wikipedia should be entitled, but it has no bearing here.  On English Wikipedia, we follow the usage of the consensus of English sources.
 * The consensus seems to be in favor of the rename. If there is nothing new to add, I'll bring this to a conclusion after a decent interval. Mathglot (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to admin RickinBaltimore for helping with the move. The talk page move will follow shortly. Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And the talk page move is now complete as well, thanks to admin User:Huon. Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Slovakia

 * 1) Slovak National Party has a new leader and rather moderate rhetoric. Nowadays, it's a member of the governing coalition together with Most-Híd (widely supported by the Hungarian minority and led by ex-leader of the Party of Hungarian Coalition Béla Bugár). It seems that they consistently do better (or other) work than playing nationalistic games. (See this, just for fun)
 * 2) Hedviga Malinová does NOT say that she was beaten because she "phoned" in Hungarian. She (allegedly) does not remember. She said that she does not remember also during the first police questioning (scanned protocol, p. 7) Ditinili (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Archival
I have moved the old "Talk:Anti-Hungarian sentiment" to Talk:Anti-Hungarian sentiment/Archive 2 to make way for a move from Talk:Hungarophobia. Huon (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Lead paragraph, and Terminology section
Because of the multiplicity of designations in English for the article topic, I wonder if we shouldn't have a new section called Terminology at the top, right after the summary, to discuss some, or all of these terms?

The first sentence is currently unwieldy, with four, bolded 'also-known-as' equivalents, before it even gets around to the verb and saying what the term actually means. What if we have the first sentence simply define what the term means, and then follow up after that with another sentence, with all the "aka's"? Then, in the Terminology section, we can go into more detail about the usage of each term, their origin, some examples, or whatever seems appropriate. Nothing huge, but since there seems to be so many equivalents, we should say something about it.

Also, I'd like to drop the second sentence in the lede as unnecessary, or redundant. We all know what xenophobia is, is it really necessary to describe it with a whole, comma-series list of items like that? Or, if there actually are some reliable sources that link anti-Hungarian sentiment specifically (as opposed to all xenophobia in general) to the items in that list, then we should keep that sentence, but then we need to reference those sources.

Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 23:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Hungarian sentiment. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110105110629/http://www.hhrf.org/hhrf/index_en.php?oldal=182 to http://www.hhrf.org/hhrf/index_en.php?oldal=182

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Crappy lead
The crappy lead fails to summarize the historical background of this sentiment. Dimadick (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Terrible article on a non-existant topic
This article seems to share many of the same issues as certain articles pertaining to modern "persecutions of christians". Anti-hungarian sentiment implies there's some universally observable sentiment specifically targetting hungarians on the grounds of their ethnicity. In reality, most so called anti-hungarian sentiment is just regular nationalist sentiment, and hungarians are targeted only because they happen to be the a minority in a country where such sentiments are prominent, much the same way how hungarian nationalism pushes negative sentiments against minorities living in hungary or it's neighboring countries. In fact, hungary has been under nationalist-populist control for over a decade. There's no special case of anti-hungarian sentiment that is radically different from how hungarian nationalists treat other ethnicities. And that is not saying anything about the various instances I've come across on other talk pages, where editors tried to highlight anti-hungarian sentiment among the ideologies of far right movements in eastern europe as being on-par with their flagrant antisemitism, diminishing the significance of the latter. Doesn't take a genious to guess what REALLY fuels the whole "Hungarophobia" narrative. Overall, this article needs some serious revision or preferably deletion. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The section on Czechoslovakia somehow brings communism into the mix, which is always a major red flag, and is using something that targetted both Hungarians AND Germans, and not Hungarians specifically.
 * The section on Slovakia uses criticism of the Hungarian government as an example of anti-hungarian sentiment - a very valid criticism, as the current hungarian government has been known to use hungarian minorities in neighboring countries as an excuse to interfere in their internal affairs. The section also presents a rather self defeating survey which effectively shows that hungarians are not persecuted.
 * Finally the section on Romania falsely claims that John Hunyadi went through "Romanianization", when in reality it is proven fact that he was ethnically Romanian. He was "hungarian" in the sense that he was a vassal of the hungarian crown, as hungarian ethnonationalism didn't exist until centuries after his death.
 * This page is about how to improve the article Anti-Hungarian sentiment, so anything on other pages isn't really relevant here (though you could bring the topic up there). Simply complaining about the article with no suggestions about how to improve it is neither helpful, nor appropriate here. As far as deletion, you are more than welcome to propose the article for deletion; please see the instructions at WP:AFD; I think you would be wasting your time, but you're welcome to try. If you wish to propose some improvement to this article, please do so; otherwise I'd certainly support anyone who collapsed this discussion per WP:NOTFORUM. I'll leave you a talkback so you'll be notified, and hopefully you can make a positive contribution here. Mathglot (talk) 09:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have pointed out specific issues I have with this article, and unless a plurality of reliable secondary sources explicitly describe something as an example of anti-hungarian sentiment, i.e. actions specifically targetting hungarian people based on their ethnicity and not just examples of general nationalistic sentiment that incidentally affect hungarians, among other minorities, or criticism of things the current hungarian government is actually doing, then the only thing I can recommend in terms of improving this article is to blank it completely, and create a redirect to Chauvinism.
 * Anti-hungarian sentiment is not like antisemitism, where there's a universally observable pattern of attitudes, sentiments, tropes and narratives specifically targetting one group and all it's members on the grounds of belonging to that particular group. Rather, this article is attempting to upgrade certain examples of nationalism in countries where hungarians are a minority, or reframe criticisms of foreign policies of Hungary's far right government as anti-hungarian, in order to sell the political narrative that hungarians are uniquely targetted, which is not supported by the reliable sources.
 * I am aware of how proposing for deletion works, and my first and only attempt thought me that it's best for me to just discuss it first. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

There was a lot of anti-Hungarian sentiment in the later stages of the Austro-Hungarian empire, since part of the Hungarian aristocracy willingly accepted the role of suppressers of Slavic nationalisms on behalf of the Imperial gvernment. It was probably one of the most significant episodes of anti-Hungarianism not connected with tensions or conflicts between different national governments, and it had a role in shaping the Treaty of Trianon, so I don't know why it isn't mentioned on this article... AnonMoos (talk)


 * Keywords being "Slavic nationalism" and "suppressers". The hungarians in that situation were convenient "enemies" in the eyes of a nascent far right nationalist movement due to past opression. They weren't specifically targetted because of their ethnicity. This is like pointing to modern day theocracies where christianity isn't the dominant religion, and accusing them of persecuting christians, when in reality, all religions other than the dominant one are being persecuted, and christianity is just one of them. In those cases, religion is the problem - christianity just happens to be the underdog (a rare inversion).
 * In your example, the problem is nationalism, hungarians just happen to be the underdog, because they're no longer in the position of the opressor. By this logic, there should be such an article for every possible ethnic group in existence, after all, all ethnicities experience such sentiments. OR we could just admit that this is the exact same phenomenon in all such cases, only the roles of the opressor and the opressed change. As I stated before, this is NOT like Antisemitism, which is universally observable all over the globe as a distinct phenomenon with consistent tropes, stereotypes and narratives. But treating general nationalist xenophobia as a distinct phenomenon for every single ethnic group that has ever been targetted by it, does help trivialize the phenomenon of antisemitism, by casting it as just another form of discrimination that literally everyone can experience. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that ethnic hatreds can cause significant large-scale antagonism and/or negatively impact many individuals' lives without fitting into the narrow straightjacket of existing for thousands of years over multiple continents which you seem to be proposing. In any case, antisemitism has not been the same everywhere.  Traditionally, Muslims had a vague generalized contempt for Jews as militarily weak and blindly rejecting the obviously superior revelation of Islam, but most of the toxic odium theologicum and myths of Jews as evil were actually imported from European Christians starting in the 19th century (see Damascus affair)... --  AnonMoos (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Your comment on antisemitism highlights exactly what I'm talking about. The notion that jews are "blindly rejecting the obviously superior revelation of Islam" is just the vague, generalized contempt towards all non-muslims, identical to the vague, generalized contempt christianity harbors against all non-christians. That is not antisemitism, that is just a general religious intolerance that also happens to affect jews, the same way it affects all religions that are considered "other" - even some jews are capable of harboring such intolrance towards non-jews, as religious intolrance is observable in all religions.  Antisemitism is specifically aimed at jews and no other group, specifically because of the myths, tropes and stereotypes you mention. And yes, they were imported from christians because they stem uniqiely from christianity, and can be traced back to christianity even when it's not exclusively held by christians.
 * Back on topic, this is an identical situation. "Anti-hungarian sentiment" is neither unique, nor notable enough to be treated as a separate, standalone phenomenon, that is set apart from the generalized contempt nationalists harbor against members of all other ethnic groups, especially when those ethnic groups also harbor nationalists of their own and the contempt is mutual. We speak of "Anti-hungarian sentiment" in Slovakia, because Hungarians are a minority in Slovakia. If Slovakia belonged to Hungary and Hungarians were the majority, we'd probably be talking about "Anti-slovakian sentiment" instead. There's no reason why these things need to be treated as separate things, when there's nothing of substance that truly sets them apart.
 * That, and the sources used make a poor job convincing the reader that this so called "anti-hungarian sentiment" is anything other than a couple of isolated cases that have been signal-boosted by hungarian nationalist propaganda. As I explained above, the Czechoslovakian and Romanian examples are also heavily biased, reframing both the denazification of Czechoslovakia and the teaching of a widely accepted historical fact, as anti-hungarian. I also couldn't help but notice that this article was nominated for deletion three times and actually deleted once and changed to a redirect the second time. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It's extremely simplistic to call Slavic nationalisms in the Austro-Hungarian empire "far-right". They were generally "romantic" (in a specific sense of the word which applies to nationalist ideologies), and their adherents were disgusted with the whole medievalesque Austro-Hungarian system, and Austria-Hungary's role as the "prison house of nations" (to apply a phrase apparently coined by Lenin)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)