Talk:Greater Hungary

Revert war
Main meaning of the term "Greater Hungary" is not Kingdom of Hungary. During its existence, Kingdom of Hungary was not known as "Greater Hungary", thus political goal of Hungarian irredentists and WW2 Hungary are more often known under term "Greater Hungary" than Kingdom of Hungary (usage of this term for Kingdom of Hungary is rather very rare modern usage). PANONIAN 11:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can accept that, but how does this justify the editorial about "Hungarian irredentists"? KissL 11:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Panonian, Wikipedia is not a strategic game where you get extra points if you include the expression "Hungarian irredentists" as many times as possile. The only thing you can achieve with your behaviour is that you upset those Hungarians who are not irredentists (i.e. the vast majority of them) --KIDB 12:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What you talk about? "Irredentists" is term widely used in literature. How would you call the people who want to enlarge borders of their country instead irredentists? As for your claim that I "would upset those Hungarians who are not irredentists", that simply is not possible because every non-irredentist Hungarian would support independence of Romanians, Slovaks, Croats, Serbs, etc achieved by the Treaty of Trianon. PANONIAN  19:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And by the way, KIDB, you just reverted page to "your" version with no presented proof on the talk page that Kingdom of Hungary is main meaning of term Greater Hungary. If you do not present such proof, I will revert your edits 24 hours after my last revert. PANONIAN  19:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Friend, I will try to explain: "Hungarian irredentist" is an offensive term and should be used only if it adds necessary information to an article. On a disambiguation page it is absolutely not needed, as KissL wrote above.
 * Regarding the other issue: Greater Hungary existed for many centuries, this is why it is the first article on the disambiguation list. Greater Hungary, as a political concept, came to surface after the Trianon treaty and aimed the re-creation of the the former Kingdom, this is why it only second, a child of the 20th century.
 * I had a look at the Greater Serbia article and now I think I understand your way of thinking - you think that the Greater Hungary topic is the same as the Greater Serbia issue. Am I right? --KIDB 20:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And for whom exactly term "Hungarian irredentist" is offensive. How you suggest that we should call those irredentists? As for those "many centuries", you are wrong: it was Kingdom of Hungary that existed for "many centuries", and not only in the form of "Greater Hungary" but also in the form of Royal Hungary. But, the important thing is that even when kingdom existed in the form of "Greater Hungary", it was not known under such name. In fact, it was banned user VinceB who first introduced usage of term "Greater Hungary" for Kingdom of Hungary and the point is that today main meaning of the term "Greater Hungary" is simply not former Kingdom of Hungary. For example, the main meaning of term "Greater Hungary" in Serbia is memory about genocide against Serb and Jewish civilians in 1942, while nobody in Serbia would ever think that "Greater Hungary" (Velika Mađarska in Serbian) could also refer to Kingdom of Hungary (Ugarska in Serbian) because there is big difference between terms Mađarska and Ugarska in Serbian language. Regarding Greater Serbia article, I never read it, so I really cannot tell you about it. Anyway, even if your claim that "Greater Hungary as political concept is a child of the 20th century" is correct, this is 21st century, and like it or not, that is exactly main meaning of this term at the present moment. Of course, I would argue with the claim that this concept is a "child of the 20th century" because it was much present in previous centuries as well, for example in 1848 or in 1867, etc, etc... PANONIAN  22:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Now I understand, why Hungary during WW2 is also called Greater Hungary on the disamb page - Serbians use this expression for it. I was first surprised to see it there, because it is not a common expression for this period in Hungarian. Maybe we should rephrase it like: "Greater Hungary (Velika Madarska), a Serbian expression for the enlarged Hungary during World War II." Greater Hungary or Historical Hungary (Nagy-Magyarország, történelmi Magyarország) is usually used for the pre-Trianon Hungarian Kingdom. (And not only by irredentists, but by everybody in Hungary). Other Hungarian users might confirm this. --KIDB 11:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First: this is English Wikipedia, thus we have to use main meanings used today in English language, not in Serbian or Hungarian. Also, you can see that term Greater Hungary is also used in English texts to describe Hungary in WW2: http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/058.shtml And you can see that it is used for description of irredentist aims: http://www.threemonkeysonline.com/threemon_article_hungarian_citizenship_referendum_ethnic_hungarians_dual_citizenship.htm The point is, since this is disambiguation page named "Greater Hungary", the main meaning of this disambiguation is article "Greater Hungary (political concept)" because that article contain words "Greater Hungary". Other two articles ("Kingdom of Hungary" and "Hungary in ww2") do not contain words "Greater Hungary" in their titles, thus it is obvious that they are not main subjects of this disambiguation. They are mentioned just to show to what else this term can refer. In another words, following this logic, article named "Greater Hungary (political concept)" should be first meaning of this disambiguation because it contains exact words from disambiguation title, article "Kingdom of Hungary" could be secong and "Hungary in ww2" could be third. PANONIAN  12:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anybody can do a simple Google search to see: most sources use the term Greater Hungary in the meaning of pre-Trianon Hungary. --KIDB 05:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You say that but I doubt that you checked all of 1,840,000 google hits for greater hungary to confirm that: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=greater+hungary&spell=1 However, I will repeat my previous point: usual main meanings of disambiguation pages in English Wikipedia are those that contain exact words of disambiguation and in this case such exact words are "Greater Hungary". We have only one article that contain exact words from disambiguation page and therefore that is indeed the main meaning of this disambiguation here. Other two articles do not contain words from disambiguation page in their titles and therefore they cannot be considered to be main meanings of this disambiguation. PANONIAN  18:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I have protected this page. The edit war going on here is absolutely needless - after all, it is about a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages should not even contain any meaningful content other than providing links and very short summaries of what the linked articles are about. The order of articles should ideally be irrelevant - alphabetical, ideally. We should operate on the basis of network neutrality at disambiguation pages rather than prioritising pages we believe fit our ideologies about certain things better. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 14:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So? What solution you propose to solve this dispute? PANONIAN  19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How about "quit pushing political POV"? K. Lásztocska 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is exactly what should be done here (but it is not me who should stop with it...) PANONIAN  21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice joke. You were the one making a disambiguation page into an editorial. I know you think Europe is about to be overrun by evil Hungarian irredentists, but you are mistaken. For my part, I suggest listing this debate on WP:LAME. K. Lásztocska 04:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Editorial? Well, according to editorial article, "an editorial is a statement or article by a news organization, newspaper or magazine that expresses the opinion of the editor, editorial board, or publisher", and that are really not my intentions. My concerns were about fact that main meaning of disambiguation page should be article that contain exact words from the title of disambiguation page (what would be reasons not to do it like this???). Also, the correct description of the aims of Hungarian irredentists is that they want to enlarge borders of Hungary, while claim about "restoration of borders" are only their proclaimed "reasons" for their aims, but not their aims themselves. PANONIAN  21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In colloquial English, "editorial" can also mean "unnecessary political point-making at inappropriate times." I understand your concerns about linking to articles that have the exact words of the disambig page in the title, but then again, we have redirects for nicknames, colloquial names etc. (e.g. I'm pretty sure "Butcher of Baghdad" redirects to "Saddam Hussein.")If, as KIDB has shown, "Greater Hungary" is often used to refer to the Kingdom of Hungary, I don't see any reason why KoH shouldn't be first on the list--I mean, which is the more important concept, an entire kingdom of great importance to the course of European history, or the political goals of a tiny handful of extremists?

I don't understand what you are trying to say with the complaint about "enlarge borders" vs. "restore borders." The borders of the Kingdom of Hungary did once exist, so if the extremists got their way, it would indeed be a restoration of pre-Trianon borders, not a simple "enlargement." There is no value judgement implied in the word "restoration", it doesn't imply that those were Hungary's rightful borders or anything. K. Lásztocska 04:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it would not be restoration of borders because post-1918 Hungary and pre-1918 Kingdom of Hungary are not same countries - to restore borders of the country you first have to restore the country which do not exist anymore. Therefore, irredentist claim that they want to "restore" borders is simply an logical falacy. Their true aim is to expand borders of the new country which never in the past had such borders. Regarding my point that article that have in its title exact words from disambiguation page is a main meaning of disambiguation, you still did not showed why this point would be wrong - the importance of the Kingdom of Hungary for European history simply have nothing to do with this issue because in European literature Kingdom of Hungary is exactly known as Kingdom of Hungary, while Greater Hungary is very rare name used for it. On the contrary, political concept of Greater Hungary is known under this name only. PANONIAN  15:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't do that Google search, did you? --KIDB 18:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What that have to do with my previous point? PANONIAN  20:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Panonian, I mean absolutely no offence by this comment, but I speak English better than you do. I think a lot of times you read sinister/incorrect/slanted meanings into things that aren't really there, and a certain level of unfamiliarity with the language might be part of that. I can't believe we're still fighting over such a trivial issue btw, and I will list this on WP:LAME as soon as I have time. K. Lásztocska 00:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is about the Greater Hungary (political concept) article anyway. The debate should be settled there and not on a disamb page. --KIDB 15:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, this is debate in which order we should list links in this page. Anyway, I would really like to hear opinion about this from some other users that do not live in Central Europe (or not originating from it). PANONIAN  18:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Btw, current version of the page not only that it is not in accordance with other disambiguation pages, but it also reflect irredentist opinion: "we once had big country that evil neighbours stole form us and now we want to restore it" - I am sorry but current version of the page sound exactly like this. PANONIAN  18:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Pannonian, the text is quite neutral now, there are no expressions there like "evil neighbours" or "Hungarian irredentists". --KIDB 20:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, text is not neutral. I already asked you what term you want to use instead "Hungarian irredentists" - you never answered (whose political concept is that if not irredentist?) Second, the version of the page that use irredentist rhetorics that political goal is "restoring the borders of the former Kingdom of Hungary" is far from neutral. The political goal is englargement of borders of Hungary and every similar irredentist concept in other countries have various historical, ethnical or even geographical "justifications" for their aims and therefore claim that such goal is "restoration of borders" is just example of irredentist "justification". PANONIAN  21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Koppany...
Why you reverted my edits? I added to the article sentence written by Hungarian user K. Lastochka in Greater Hungary (political concept): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Hungary_%28political_concept%29&diff=141303794&oldid=141150588 The fact is that "justifications" for creation of Greater Hungary presented by Hungarian revisionists were not only historical but also ethnic, geographical and economical and therefore the "restoration of historical borders" was only one of these "justifications". However, the ethnic justification was in fact the major one because without it all other would be totally ridiculous. So, let just have here an NPOV sentence agreed by several authors, while revisionist justifications are all already described in Greater Hungary (political concept). PANONIAN 23:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hungarian irredentism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)