Talk:History of Hungary/Archive 2

Pathetical article
Guys (and girls), you are not writing for a meeting of Hungarian patriots but for English speaking people who need to get a basic and impartial information. Mostly the information which could help them to find other sources. The way in which some of you ignore a principle of wikipedia to use a present day official local names is fascinating. I am also sure that a formualtion "Czech state" "Czech government" for Czechoslovakia is unusual and not correct. Probably you have some frustration from Slovaks now. QWXC (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That time when first Czech soldiers crossed the Northern borders (present-day Slovak-Czech border), Czechoslovakia de-facto did not exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.184.193 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody is stopping you to correct the article. It is true that in 1918 the Chech were conquering parts of Norther Hungary, which is interesting in itself, as at that time the Chech legions were few weeks before fighting together with Hungarians on Austria-Hungary side... Check out "Hungarian-Slovak relations". Abdulka (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Origin of Holy Crown
Just to stick to facts: I have removed the legend of the crown being given from Pope Sylvester II; it is not confirmed and even it is now proven it could not be. Most Hungarians are still sticking to this "tale" but this is a remeke of Hartwik's legend. The Hartwik legend does NOT write the crown is from the Pope. This was a theory which was accepted in the past. It is now evident that Mieszko was not reigning in the same period, Hartwik was writing about "crown" and not specificly athe Holy Crown; finally, the Vatican didn't know about the crown itself at that time. Why the crown is "Holy" is not known, there are tons of speculations, but they are SPECULATIONS only. Let's stick to facts. I left the sentance afterwards; the Pope really confimed the statehood of Stephen. Abdulka (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Help needed
I have raised an issue about the history of the Kingdom of Hungary during WWII : you may read about this here. Any help would be very welcome. Thanks, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:26, 2 April 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) 11:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Falsification
This article is simply a falsification. What heroic history!!! hahaha, where are all slavic historical dates? for example http://www.medievaltimes.info/medieval-europe-9th-to-13th-century/balaton-principality-lower-panonia.html or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balaton_Principality and what about hungarian crimes again other nations in so called Hungarian kingdom in 19 and 20. centuries.???? what about hungariazation or magyarization, what about genocide of Slovaks and onthers non-hungarians people???? this article makes me sick. full of bullshit.


 * Hello anonymous editor from Slovakia. Thanks for your good faith comments. I'm no expert on Hungarian history, but according to the wikipedia article you linked to, the short-lived Balaton Principality ended in 876. Because it's a history of Hungary, not the Pannonian Basin, this article doesn't really cover anything before 895 in detail. And to be honest, if it was going to cover the thousands of years of history of the Pannonian basin before 876, I'm not sure a 36-year-long principality would get much attention.
 * Magyarization is mentioned and linked to in the section titled "Austria–Hungary (1867–1918)" If you'd like to expand on that section with reliable sources, please feel free to do so. Thanks again. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Themightyquill as a falsifier of history! I am pretty shocked that somebody as a Themightyquill can have such impress on falsifiaction of history. I strongly recommend to revise all his activity on wikipedia. He hides all facts about supression of Slavic or non-hungarian and non-german nation in Europe which has taken for 1000 years. Actually he falsifies history to describes victims as criminals!!!!!! What nazi rasist chauvinist and liar! What about history of Hungary! Where is chapter about hungarian war crimes, about racial genocide of non-hungarian nations in Hungary, about original slavic residents of contemporary Hungary?!? pls. read real history: http://www.archive.org/details/racialproblemsin00setouoft racial problem in hungary by Robert Wiliam Senton-Watson [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.241.3 (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Themightyquill also forgot about slavic people who had to be killed by asian hungarians to capture panonian teritory. and many of non-hungariant were enslaved by hungarians. non-hungarians were used in hungarian kingdom as agricultural slaves until 1918!!!!!! when treaty of versailles finished it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.23.241.3 (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please try to be neutral. Chauvinist view is not allowed on Wikipedia.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear anonymous editor from Slovakia. I didn't write this article myself. I'm neither Hungarian nor a historian of Hungary. I don't know anything about the history of Hungary before the 19th century, so I'm not a likely candidate to write the history of pre-Magyar Carpathian Basin. I suggested that you make changes to the article with reliable sources. I'm not sure how this makes me a "rasist chauvinist and liar". If you can find an edit of mine that is factually untrue or which describes victims as criminals, I'll gladly apologize. By the way, I believe it was the treaty of Trianon which broke up Hungary and led to the creation of Slovakia, not the Treaty of Versailles. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear Themightyquill! You were right and your answer was perfect. I mean the chauvinist is User: 217.23.241.3. (Slavic nationalism) Fakirbakir (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Everyone! The anonymous user must be a nationalist user lacking willingness to validate his views. As this is the international Wikipedia article for the topic here I offer a summarization of what happened. I think this gives background information to evaluate complaints by nationalities of the carpathian basin, if editors think it is unnecessary here (publishing then citing it as source would be acceptable only) feel free to delete my post. I as a Hungarian tell in a few points what happened:
 * 1. Hungarians settled in the Carpathian Basin in 1000 A.D.
 * 2. After the Tatar invasion [note-you mean Mongol invasion - it's very important to realize that Batu (Khan) and Subedai were in command, and had several tumens of the cream of the Mongolian army with them, along with whatever auxillary forces of other nations - HammerFilmFan], much of the country and the people were destroyed, King IV. Bela decided not to give a chance for a succesful next invasion by anyone, and instead of waiting for natural population growth allowed slavic peoples to settle in. (It can be added, not their lack of being inhabitants before, but the later oppression is what they can have problem with, or with the nationalist demands described later, time of settling later every normal people knows doesn't lessen right to live at a place.)
 * 3. He gave rights to settlements to be cities and encircle themselves with walls, and founded castles and made nobles from all nationalities. During this time nation was separate from state everywhere in Europe, local nobility or priests were preaching on the language of the local majority or on their own national language. This all happened in the 1400s
 * 4. In 1800 the nationalist awakening, and the movenments wishing to establish nation-states committed crimes against free national identification on all sides. From the minority sides push for ethnically homogenous nation states (by this chasing away other nationalities from territories they were in mayority), from the Hungarian side push for ethnically homogenous Hungary while preserving its whole territory started. This was done from the 1820s, Kossuth in the 40's was another symbolic representative of it. Ágoston Trefort Education Minister known for his advancing reforms in the 60's also tried to eradicate nationalities by introducing obligatory Hungarian Language in general education. Such oppression erupted periodically.
 * 5. At the Treaty of Trianon the minorities had the chance to found their own states as their proposals coincided with the interrests of the victorious powers. The new borders were designed to cut all remaining Hungarian mayor city's economic territory half, the railways out and the area and population of Hungary the smallest possible while doing it under the name of setting up nation-states. On the other side of the border reversed oppression broke out.
 * 6. This way, the contract agreed by King Bela IV. was breached by the leadership of the 1800s, and not long time was spent until the nationalities were freed from Hungarian oppression.
 * Conclusion: The myth of 1000 year (out of human nature, theoretically impossible) oppression must be a sociological result of fathers of the countryside of the 1900s being asked about what was life like in Hungary, they told something, the people of that age had so large perspective they immediately generalized it to the times before.
 * On the Hungarian side the secession is not generally told to people by parents on the way that those who built the buildings and worked there for centuries had the right to their own national identification, they cannot be ordered to move and leave everything, and a multi-national country only has right to exist and have access to all the agricultural lands, but also mines etc., as long as it respects the national rights. As it was not respected it was dissolved. The UK exists because there is no such uniformization of the different nationalities. Hungarian nationalists think they have right to the fortune of the former territories.
 * From the side of the former minorities the real problem is that as the Crown Jewels and the Kingdom is called Hungarian not a name different from all constituting nationalities they think they lack the Middle-Age symbology and mythology classically associated to a nation-state, Crown Jewels and Kings were called Hungarian. King Matthias' grandfather had Romanian nationality and King Matthias' father Janos Hunyadi is also considered as such also. This way King Matthias can also be considered a Romanian. The statement they had Kings who were Hungarians they cannot accept, for this would state high level of civilization the people of the Kingdom enjoyed, neither deny because then their level of civilization (Churches, offices, castles, economy etc.) and their own achievments would be in denial. They have to believe there was oppression and misery in order to condemn Hungary, and also have to believe their own achievenments and buildings, chatedrals which are still standing. What they can accept the least is the presence of different monarchs officially declared as Hungarians. The phenomenon that proves this most is that Slovak nationalists using symbols derived from Hungarian Crown symbology are enraged to hear the origin of it. As the state, or the monarch authority wasn't paired to nationalities, the office of King of each nationality and crown jewels wasn't made. Still as people of the same language constitute a group, this can be argued resulted in inequality. With the Croats there is no nationalistic tension because they were in personalunion with Hungary, the king used their Crown Jewels also, had to be crowned to be their king also and they didn't only came together private but it was acknowledged as their national assembly. As a Romanian put it: yes, they (the nobility) had to go to the distant Buda (to the common royal assembly as the representatives of territories) as the decisions agreed here had no effect. And answer to a specific claim: if regulation of peasantry work was oppressive, their own national nobility oppressed them. Only solution is elimination of the idea of pure nation-state, there is always mingling of nationalities near the borders, this way wars can always be started. For this reason demanding Pozsony/Bratislava back because it had 90% Hungarian mayority at secession must be averted, by now it has 90% Slovak mayority. As the mirage of nation-state made the original sin, it was intolerance offering salvation itself, elimination of it eliminates danger of ethnic cleansing. Every administration state has to ensure free national cultural life, this way nations don't feel oppressed.

Moreover, we acknowledge their existence as a nationality, regardless of whether they have kings at the moment or not. We also had a time when the Kings were Habsburg and only the nobility could be considered Hungarian, there was Germanification and introduction of obligatory German language in offices, still nationalistic rage against Austria or doubt about whether we are a nationality would be considered even by national-radicalists absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.11.6 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Long answer, the shortest way I consider can describe the reasons that aggressive idiots don't even know they hate complete nations because, while eliminating the possibility of one-sided infaming. I believe this description eliminates most of the rage and charges on both sides, both the stealers of territory and mines on one side and the murderous-oppressive hungarians on the other, also the compensation of inner doubt of whether they are a nation by a Slovak radical. Ethnic cleansing was committed by the peasantry and by the armies on both sides in 1848, after Trianon it happened there and I because of the general public reaction to the news and mentality suppose on the Hungarian side of the border as well. N.11.6 (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Readability
The latter section of the article is basically unreadable; the English must be improved by someone who has some background in Hungarian history to make sure that the meaning does not diverge too much from what was intended. Colipon+ (Talk) 22:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

American Spelling
According to ENGVAR, unless there is a strong national tie to a topic (which doesn't apply to Hungary), the article should maintain consistency. Looking through the history, it seems like American English was the first one used. The first time I see a regional spelling is here, in the word "center". If you see a different earlier example, please let me know. So I'm going to suggest for fairness, that the article use American English throughout. Thoughts? Please note, I'm not American, and don't use American English normally. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What you have published is just rediclous.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.154.112 (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Principality of Hungary
I started to edit a page, Principality of Hungary however It is redirected again. I think this page needs to exist. It is wee bit funny when I see that Principality of Hungary points to page of History of Hungary and there are just few sentences about this subject.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Why not develop your proposed article in your User space? That way, people will be able better to judge whether the content should be merged into this article or whether there is enough material to justify a separate article. Don't forget to include sources. HairyWombat 23:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * An article about the Principality of Hungary should indeed exist. It was established in 895, while the Kingdom of Hungary was only created in 1000. Thus, the article "Principality of Hungary" should cover more than hundred years of the Hungarian history. Since, for example, there is an article about only 13 (!) years of the history of the United States, it is completely adequate to have a page dedicated to this (more than 100 years long) era of the Hungarian history. Though, the article which was deleted and redirected here was small, but it contained sufficient references. I think that it should deserve a chance to grow. -- Koertefa (talk) 06:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, user Koertefa. I know the quality of the page was not good enough, however it does not mean that we do not need that article. I am willing to contribute more copyedits, sources. There is no valid reason to keep that page redirected.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I started to improve this article as User HairlyWombat recommended. Please, check my sandbox.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. So the development of the article continues (temporarily) at User:Fakirbakir/sandbox. -- Koertefa (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Now The page is unprotected. Thank you for the support.Fakirbakir (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)