Talk:Kingdom of Hungary/Archive 2

Croatia was only in Personal Union with Hungary
I don't know how you people can say it was part of Hungary when a document named Pacta Conventa, made by king of Hungary, says that it was personal union...You can read it also - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Pacta_Conventa_(Croatia).jpg - Part od the textgoes : How and wich agreement Croats surrendered to the King of Hungary!--Wustefuchs (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Languages in the infobox
Can someone explain under which criterion are the languages mentioned? Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the facts, Kingdom of Croatia and K. of Slavonia, initially also K. of Dalmatia were part of the lands of the holy crown of st. Stephen. In the Croatian parliament there was Croatian spoken if I am not kidding. Besides, all the documents pertaining to the Croatian crown and land were written in Croatian. Why is Croatian language omitted? There are more reasons to put Croatian and remove German if someone doesn't like seeing four spoken languages for what ever reason that be the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer of Habsburg (talk • contribs) 23:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Province vs Kingdom of Croatia and other issues
I am drawing raeders attention to the following. In legal science in the sphere of unitary or centralised states (what Kingdom of Hungary was, plus being a monarchy (proof on its own)) provinces are subordinated to the central government. That means that the center of the country or power can create or abolish them. This was not the case in the case of Kingdom of Croatia. Another instance is that official name of Croatia was Kingdom. It was not part of the Kingdom of Hungary but part of the Lands of the holy crown (what is the full and proper name of the entity shown on the map). This is easy to see e.g. in the censuses done in the Kingdom of Hungary where Kingdom of Croatia was not included. In the case of "province" it would have been done. But K. of C. hat its own legislation regulating census and its financing (like many other laws) independently of the other kingdoms that were subject to the same king. I really don't see reasons for naming this article K. of H. and including K. of C. in it. In all the documents ever issued by the King, in any language (be it Croatian, Latin or Hungarian, the term province was not used even once. So much about trustworthiness of the article. I believe this written here some may not like, but being encyclopedic >we have to reffer to proper sources (plenty of official ones from the time of both kingdoms) and not some vague web-sites and ideologicaly driven books. I also suggest to rename the article to the Lands of the holy crown and to create a new article about the kingdom of Hungary (proper if you like). The name of the teritory shown in the map was never Kingdom of Hungary >this is way out of misleading and falsificating. Even the article itself states thet Kingdom of Hungary was not the name of what is discussed, so the article title should be changed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer of Habsburg (talk • contribs) 23:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuous independence?
I find it odd that this article states that the Kingdom of Hungary existed from 1000-1946. I don't know what consensus was reached on this matter here, but I think we need to make a difference between the medieval Kingdom of Hungary and the 20th century state, since they were far from the same. IMO it'd be best to have the the article say that the medieval kingdom exists from 1000 to 1541, where the arrowlinks point to Royal Hungary, Ottoman Hungary and the Principality of Transylvania rather than having them point directly to the Hungarian Democratic Republic. The point is here that this article makes it seem like the Kingdom of Hungary existed continuously from its creation till the foundation of the republic, when it was partitioned between two/three states. That's as if one would completely ignore say, the Partition of Poland, and claim it to exist from 1386 to 1918.

My point is, the article should be split between an article about the medieval kingdom and one about the 20th century state. Nederbörd (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how good your English is, but there seems to be a contradiction in what you are writing, existence is not the same as independence. For example certainly the city of Paris exists and yet it is not independent from France, so it's not a contradiction at all to state that something existed in a certain period even if there was no complete and full independence during all of the period. Take another French example did the country of France exist in 1939, yes and also in 1940 as well even though it was not independent at the time the country still existed the exact circumstances are well explained in the article body. Such as here with the Kingdom of Hungary (unofficially called Royal Hungary during that time) and their relationship to the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom(later renamed principality of Transylvania) and Ottoman Hungary (occupied) was complex. So in this period there were 2 kingdoms one in the east one in the west (so the situation is similar to east-west Germany and not the partition of Poland) and one area ottoman occupied. But this can best be explained if you look at the King of Hungary. There was always a King or regent of Hungary while the Kingdom of Hungary existed in the past. The King sometimes ruled over bigger territories, sometimes smaller as was the case with every other state. During the period you mentioned he only ruled parts of the Kingdom of Hungary as the rest was occupied / split. So yes there was a period where Kingdom of Hungary was unofficially called Royal Hungary but still the form of Government remained the same: Monarchy. Hobartimus (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

rename page
For reader's usability and scientific reasons, I think this article should be renamed Kingdom of Hungary (terminology), and include an overall presentation of the historical use of the term "Kingdom of Hungary": the medieval kingdom, the Habsburg one, the one part of the dual-monarchy and, finally, the interbellum one (I am thinking of something in the lines of Macedonia (terminology)...). Please present your views on this initiative, and vote. Thank you. 85.122.25.226 (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Support, as initiator. 85.122.25.226 (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose apart from being an obvious sock, well versed in wikipedia editing code and such, on first edits, (but thanks for revealing one of the IPs that you use this will be very useful for later), your hoax articles that you were trying to "create" by simply copying content from elsewhere were already deleted such as Kingdom of Hungary (medieval). Besides this "proposal" cannot even be proposed as a rename, because it would fundamentally alter and thus delete the whole content of this article, this can only be achieved at Afd. So no it won't happen as a "rename". Hobartimus (talk) 12:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

"lasting state in the region until the Hungarians"

 * "Neither of these two nor others[citation needed] were able to create a lasting state in the region until the freshly unified Hungarians led by Árpád settled in the Carpathian Basin"

The above is not true. I tried to fix the error myself but obviously I did something wrong as my fix was deleted by an editor, probably. What I did was expanding the invalid part of the article as follows:

The Hungarians led by Árpád started to settle in the Carpathian Basin in 895 after their move towards Western Europe was stopped by Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor in Battle of Lechfeld. In the Carpathian Basin the Hungarians conquered an existing Slavonic state of Great Moravia weakened after the death of king Svatopluk I. Parts of Great Moravia kept a certain level of independence but were gradually incorporated into the Hungarian state. This helped the cultural exchange and the settlement of previously nomadic Hungarian tribes.

Please note that the above is not my opinion but historic facts supported also by Wiki articles on Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor, Battle of Lechfeld, Great Moravia and Svatopluk I. I am opened to suggestions, but even if there were objections to the wording of my correction it is still much more accurate than the misleading current information "Neither of these two nor others[citation needed] were able to create a lasting state in the region until the freshly unified Hungarians led by Árpád settled in the Carpathian Basin"

Thank you in advance

Here is the text in Wiki format: "The Hungarians led by Árpád started to settle in the Carpathian Basin in 895 after their move towards Western Europe was stopped by Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor in Battle of Lechfeld. In the Carpathian Basin the Hungarians conquered an existing Slavonic state of Great Moravia weakened after the death of king Svatopluk I. Parts of Great Moravia kept a certain level of independence but were gradually incorporated into the Hungarian state. This helped the cultural exchange and the settlement of previously nomadic Hungarian tribes. The force led by Árpád is estimated at about 400,000 people, consisting of seven Hungarian tribes, one Kabar tribe, and other smaller tribes. "

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.99.224.34 (talk • contribs) 30 January 2011

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: Declined Consensus is against the move. Hatnotes have been applied to disambiguate the two pages. Alpha Quadrant   talk    21:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary → Kingdom of Hungary (896–1918) — There already exists a similar article named Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946), so this article could treat only the pre-WWI Kingdom. It is a little strange that the second Kingdom (1920–1946) has it own page, while the one which existed continuously for more than 1000 years (896–1918) does not. This naming method is also used for: (Iaaasi (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
 * the French empire: French Empire (1804–1815) & French Empire (1852–1870)
 * the Kingdom of Italy: Kingdom of Italy (medieval), Kingdom of Italy (medieval) and Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946)
 * Oppose as nonsense. Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) was created much later as this article as such cannot be used as an argument for move. This is the main article since 2004 and will remain so unless wikipedia gets into the habit of destroying main articles of topics for example moving Romania to Romania (1989-present). As such, this is not a valid move request. Hobartimus (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support An extra reason: in the current form, it is difficult to specify the succesor states of the Kingdom in the infobox. At this moment the article treats the K. of Hun, between 1000-1946 (the both periods of existence: 1000-1918 and 1920-1946 - also known as the Regency) so it is anachronistic to present the Hungarian Democratic Republic (1918-1919) as the succesor state. The comparison with Romania (1989-present) is not appropriate, because, unlike it, Kingdom of Hungary is a former country.(Iaaasi (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
 * Comment This is not a valid request. What it is is a deletion request for this article and creation of a different one. You are free to nominate for Afd if you feel that the article needs to be deleted. But it is simply not possible to delete articles like this 7 years after creation outside of Afd. Your canvassing is also noted and will be discussed at the appropriate venue. For example notifying users who never in their life edited the article in question. Based on what? Very interesting. Hobartimus (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: To keep this article, where to keep sections 1, 3, and other general information and to create a separate article named Kingdom of Hungary (896–1918) that would contain the subsections 2.1, 2.2,... 2.8 of this article (Iaaasi (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC))


 * Oppose both What the heck?! First you propose a rename, then something completely different to split the article?! I'm sorry but I can't agree with this for two reasons: your second proposal breaks the KISS principle (makes the article even harder to manage than it already is) and due to the fact that even your first proposal is nonsense. You see from Hungary as a state's point of view there hasn't been any change in the form of government up until 1918, or only temporary (e.g. in 1848). Therefore there's no need to create separate categories for it as in case of France. Also, if KoH's mentioned, everyone thinks of the state before 1918, even Slovak editors........ Italy's not a good example either, because it didn't exist until 1861, while nobody has questioned Hungary's existence ever since 896. CoolKoon (talk) 16:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I fully agree with CoolKoon and with Hobartimus.--Nmate (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per above comments. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per arguments presented by Hobartimus and CoolKoon. Adrian (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per arguments presented by Hobartimus and CoolKoon. Just to precise the time-frame: 1000-1946. The form of the Hungarian, Kingdom of Hungary, was over the centuries continuously traced back to Stephen I snd its continuity was not broought in question. Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahem, there isn't even an incoming redirect here from the requested new title. This article seems to be the primary topic for the title, so a simple disambiguation hatnote might be what's really wanted here. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Joy, you are completely and totally right. :))) oppose this move, we dont need that wast redirect process in vain. -- WhiteWriter speaks 13:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

My recent edits
I create this thread because I am interested in the objections of User:Hobartimus and User:Nmate regarding these edits:
 * What is wrong about adding the Today part of section? It exists also in other articles (e.g. Austrian Empire, German Empire)
 * The article is about the Kingdom of Hungary (1000-1918 and 1920-1946), but the Hungarian Democratic Republic (1918-1919), the heir of the first Kingdom (1000-1918) is presented as a successor state (somehow anachronistic). And even leaving this aside (supposing that is not wrong), why shouldn't we include Greater Romania, First Republic of Czechoslovakia, West Ukrainian People's Republic and State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs as successors too? (Iaaasi (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC))


 * So is this the reason you want to rename the whole article? CoolKoon (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the reason is that as long as we have an article about Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946), this article could treat only the pre-WWI Kingdom (Iaaasi (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
 * Well, there are numerous other sub-articles about the individual eras of the history of KoH. What I'd suggest instead is merging the article of Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) with Hungary between the two world wars, since they both deal with essentially the same period (or maybe merge the latter with the first along with the other related articles of that time). CoolKoon (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we could do that, but the issue about the successor states remains (Iaaasi (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC))


 * The article is titled 'Kingdom of Hungary'. It has also existed in 1920-1946, so the article should cover that period too. I support the merge. As for the successor states, I think only Hungary considers itself the successor state (or rather the same country with a different form of government), for example with all the previous symbols (coat of arms, flag, anthem) etc. Qorilla (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thnik you confuse two notions: heir and successor''. For example:
 * - the heir of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but he successors are the all the countries listed here:
 * - the heir First French Empire is Kingdom of France (1814–1830), but the successors are the ones listed here:
 * - the heir Kingdom of Romania is Communist Romania, but the successors are the one listed here, in the infobox (Bulgaria, Ukrainian SSR etc): (Iaaasi (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)) (Iaaasi (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC))
 * Truth be told, the notion itself is quite ambiguous in case of Czechoslovakia as well, because the flag, coat of arms and the anthems were the only things which weren't reused from Austria-Hungary. Otherwise everything else was a direct copy of the former A-H items: the currency (the "crown" - koruna in Czech/Slovak, korona in Hungarian and kronen in German), the constitution (minus the part about the monarchy), the civil law, the educational system (the way grades are given, the way universities work etc.), hell even the MEPs (the Czech MEPs of the new Czechoslovakian parliament were mostly members of the Austrian Federal Assembly in A-H, while the Slovak MEPs were msotly members of the Hungarian State Assembly before Trianon). Ironically enough Slovakia has up to this day retained more of these things than Hungary itself (who has adopted the pengő as its currency, due to the Hungarian korona becoming worthless due to war loss; they've exchanged the A-H grading system in schools for the Soviet system during the communist rule due to Rákosi's sovietophilia and also adopted a LOT of idiocies from the soviets in the laws as well), even to the extent of Austrian German loanwords (Hungarians in Hungary have almost eliminated them, while in Slovakia some of these words still thrive amongst not only the Slovaks, but the Hungarian minority as well e.g. stekker - wall socket, faktúra - invoice, alapiskola - grade school, luszter - chandelier, batri - battery, hózentrógli - suspenders etc.). So if it weren't for the Slovaks' "in-bred" hatred towards anything that they think is connected to Hungarians, it won't be obvious that who the successor state is at all. CoolKoon (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If we talk about K of Hun (1000-1946) (with an interruption between 1918-1920), the correct successor is Second Hungarian Republic (Iaaasi (talk) 13:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

Merge between Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) and Hungary between the World Wars
User:Dbachmann tagged the latter for merge on september 6, 2008:. I have notified WikiProject Hungary and Former Countries. Please discuss here. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falktalk 23:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Split
There is far too much content overlap with the general History of Hungary article here. The term "kingdom of Hungary" can refer to at least three entities, Kingdom of Hungary (medieval), Kingdom of Hungary (modern), and Habsburg-ruled Hungary  1711-1867 and/or 1867-1918.

The Hungarian history articles are generally not well-kept, they are not terrible, but they are kind of falling apart. This tendency is re-inforced by a poor choice of article scopes. The main History of Hungary article has the following h2 sections: ouf of these seven, the current "Kingdom of Hungary" article is coterminous with four out of these seven (nrs. 2-5). This is basically duplication of scope.
 * 1) Early history (main articles: Hungarian prehistory and Pannonian basin before the Hungarians)
 * 2) Middle Ages (895–1526) (main article: Kingdom of Hungary (medieval))
 * 3) Early modern age (1526–1700)  (main articles (two independent entities): Royal Hungary and Ottoman Hungary)
 * 4) Modern and contemporary age (1700–1919) (main article: History of Hungary 1700–1919)
 * 5) Interbellum and WWII (1918–1946) (unfortunately,  two main articles with overlapping scopes:  Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) and Hungary between the World Wars)
 * 6) Communist period (1946-1989) (main article: People's Republic of Hungary)
 * 7) after 1989

Kingdom of Hungary currently has an intermediate position between the main History of Hungary article  and at least six main WP:SS sub-articles linked from there. This is not a good solution in the long run, as also indicated by the comparatively poor state of these articles. The more partial scope overlaps between articles you creat, the poorer the maintenance of the individual articles is going to be, because bona fide effort of contributors will be diluted. --dab (𒁳) 14:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Kingdom of Hungary was lasted from 1000 to 1946. This state never ceased during the centuries. There are other questions whether when it was entirely independent or had sub-entity status. We can only talk about one Kingdom of Hungary in essence. The quality of the pages or quality of the edits are other issues.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I need to correct myself. There were nearly 2 years (1918-1919) when the situation was obscure and we can not use the title of Kingdom of Hungary.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree, for start. An almost accurate assessment of the evolution of the term "Kingdom of Hungary". It would still require an article for "KoH (Habsburg province)" (cf. Habsburg Croatia). 19:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So, Should we take apart the page of Kingdom of Croatia (medieval) because it was a Hungarian "province" after 1102(1091) according to your set of mind?Fakirbakir (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fakirbakir, please let us clean this up, ok? You will have enough opportunities to insert grandiose statements into the article once the cfork problem has been fixed. --dab (𒁳) 13:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear DAB, I think there was nothing grandiose statement however it is just my personal opinion.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree with Fakirbakir (talk), the kingdom existed for centuries without ceasing to exist. Even though there should be articles about its particular forms over the history, there should also be a global page dedicated to the Kingdom of Hungary. Therefore, I oppose the split. -- Koertefa (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * CommentYou are right. If we followed the proposal we would have to cut apart, for example, page of Holy Roman Empire.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is the proper chronology:
 * Kingdom of Hungary may also refer to:
 * Principality of Hungary (indirect)
 * the Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages (1000–1538)
 * the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (1538–1570)
 * Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867) as a part of the Habsburg Empire. In the first era, it was called Royal Hungary (1538–1699), this was the part of the medieval kingdom that had not fallen to the Ottoman Empire.
 * the Kingdom of Hungary within the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen, the Hungarian part of the dual monarchy of Austria-Hungary  (1867–1918)
 * the Modern Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946)


 * The problematic part is Kingdom of Hungary between 1538 and 1867 and we do not have this article. We can not use the title of Royal Hungary after 1699. However we would need a separate page about Kingdom of Hungary as a 'summary' page. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Now we do have that article Kingdom of Hungary (1538–1867).Fakirbakir (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We should reduce the size of this page and concentrate on its compactness. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Confused
The intro to this topic, refffed by various discussions, assumes it is a DAB page. It is not, but the lead suggests it. I was tempted and am still tempted to cut all other content to make it a DAB, just to rouse other contributors' interest, but that would be harmful. Can we not make the lead look so much like a Dab? Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

see above. This page is a blatant WP:CFORK, but some people refuse to let us fix it due to patriotic (to say the least) sentiment of the type of ''Kingdom of Hungary was lasted from 1000 to 1946. This state never ceased during the centuries''.

This page should probably not become a disambiguation page, but just a redirect to history of Hungary, as it basically covers 90% of the history of Hungary, viz. 2 Middle Ages (895–1526) 2.1 The Patrimonial Kingdom 2.2 Mongol attacks 2.3 Age of elected Kings 2.4 Age of early absolutism 2.5 Decline (1490–1526) 3 Early modern age (1526–1700) 3.1 Ethnic aftermath of Ottoman wars 4 Modern and contemporary age (1700–1919) 4.1 The Period of Reforms (1825–1848) 4.2 Revolution, and War of Independence 4.3 Austria–Hungary (1867–1918) 4.4 World War I 5 Between the two world wars (1918–1941) 5.1 Hungarian Democratic Republic 5.2 Hungarian Soviet Republic ("Republic of the Councils") 5.3 Counterrevolution 5.4 Trianon Hungary and the Regency 5.5 World War II (toc of the current dab (𒁳) 13:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Dear Dbachmann, I am sure if it was British or American article you would not dare to use this tone. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * About your link, If you knew the noted Hungarian anthropologist Pál Lipták's work you could understand what I intended to explain there. Anthropology used this expression (Turanid race, Turanid type) without any nationalist habit in the seventies, eighties (!During the socialist era!). This is a terminological problem.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * what is this even supposed tom mean? My "tone" is directed at the state of the article, and your approach to editing, not the article topic as such. Instead of speculating about issues of "tone" you could consider addressing the issue. Or are you one of the editors who switches to discussing "tone" whenever they realize they have no case if they allow the discussion to remain on topic? --dab (𒁳) 06:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

DAB pls dont lie! "some people", "due to patriotic (to say the least) sentiment" - we all can see what u wrote there. does 'some people' refer to the state of the article? absolutely not. then u just accused Fakir, other Hungarian editors/contributors and in a way every Hungarian as being chauvinist, fascist, nazi etc. to say the least. we are well prepared for that kind of cryptic speech. u r a shame - "to say the least". would be nice if u ceased your activity as an editor/admin here on Wikipedia after this. thx and good luck for your future life outside wiki. bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.143.14.163 (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Bosnians
Is it just me, or is somebody forgeting about Bosnia in this whole thing... I mean, that map of Hungary in 1490 is clearly wrong. Although Bosnia fell to the Ottomans in 1463, the westernmost regions did not fall until more that a century later. And, on this map, it is clearly shown that a Large part of Bosnia is incorporated... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timurv1234 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have some sources, for example, another map showing this period? K&oelig;rte F a {ταλκ'' }  15:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Hungary lost half of its 10 biggest cities"
The book written by Francis Tapon isn't normally a WP:RS (per WP:SPS), but the above quote seems plausible. According to 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the 1900 most populous cities were "Budapest, 732,322; Szeged, 100,270; Szabadka (Maria-Theresiopel), 81,464; Debreczen, 72,351; Pozsony (Pressburg), 61 ,537; Hodmezo-Vasarhely, 60,824; Zagrab (Agram), 61,002; Kecskemet, 56,786; Arad, 53,9 0 3; Temesvar, 53,033;" (5 in present-day Hungary, 1 in Croatia, 1 in Serbia, 1 in Slovakia and 2 in Romania).

I will investigate if the text about "precious metal mines" is true too Bzg1920 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the verification, it is appreciated. K&oelig;rte F a {ταλκ'' }  15:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Foundation of state
Renowned Hungarian historian who cooperate with Cambridge wrote, that Hungarian state was founded in 1001. expression Principality of Hungary is problematic. --Samofi (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The coronation was in Esztergom at Christmas 1000 or on 1 January 1001.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Now I've checked your editing here and I see your problem. The foundation of the Christian state was in 1000 or 1001.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposal
We should reduce the size of this article drastically because it is actually a FORK. It would have to be a short "summary" article about the kingdom and we could find more infos in the detailed "sub-pages" of Kingdom of Hungary (as medieval kingdom or Austria-Hungary or Royal Hungary etc). Fakirbakir (talk) 10:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Strange affirmation about Stephen I
I removed the following unclear statement "It was he who created the Hungarian heavy cavalry as an example for Western European powers." It is unsourced and I was not able to find the information in the article Stephen I of Hungary either. No clarification was given since July 2012. Of course that this sentence can be re-added if a source is provided 79.117.186.167 (talk) 06:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Hungary - cultural center
This is not a "sourced info", but source manipulation. This source states something about Budapest inside Austria-Hungary. Extrapolating is wrong, I am not even sure that a country can be a center. In adddition why should the lead speak only about cultural aspects and not about political or economical ones? 79.117.168.189 (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The source talks about Budapest as a European cultural center, so where is the manipulation? And who said that we cannot talk about culture, only about politics or economics in the lead? Culture is also a key aspect of a country, it may be even more important than economics or politics. On the other hand, I agree that another source, which talks about the country itself would be better, that's why I have placed the "better source" tag. <font color="DarkSlateGray">K<font color="Teal">&oelig;rte F <font color="Teal">a <font color="DarkSlateGray">{<font color="Teal">ταλκ'' }  11:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The information is indeed important, but I suggest including it in articles like Culture of Hungary, Austria-Hungary and Budapest. The "Better source" template should be attached to sources lacking in quality; in this case the source was good, but the article text did not accurately reflect the information from the source. 79.117.168.189 (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am asking User:Rovibroni to offer the English translation of the text from the 2 Hungarian language sources that he added in his edit 79.117.177.190 (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * @User:Norden1990 - you insist that the text is sourced. I am asking you, as Hungarian speaker to check User:Rovibroni 's sources and offer the English translation of the referred text. 79.117.166.143 (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked the source http://www.napkut.hu/naput_2006/2006_03/007.htm and it seems that it does not support the text "Kingdom of Hungary was regarded as a cultural center of Europe". If someone disagrees, please give here the exact quote + translation. 79.117.171.48 (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:LEADCITE, the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source since leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body. If the "Kingdom of Hungary was ... at various points ... regarded as one of the cultural centers of Europe" helps define the topic and/or summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight, then [when?] and [need quotation to verify] requests should be removed from the lead of Kingdom of Hungary. If it does not help define the topic and/or summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight, then the text itself should not be in the lead and its removal should be discuss on the article talk page (which we are doing now). Either way, I think the the [when?] and [need quotation to verify] requests should be removed from the article lead and, if needed, posted in the article body. Given how "culture" only appears in the article lead, it does not summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your intervention. You are right. "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects" (WP:LEAD). Since this is not an idea expanded inside the article, I eliminated it from the intro, per WP:BB 79.117.168.27 (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I reverted your edit, as there is no consensus. On Tuesday, I will go to library to check the source and I will provide a translated quote. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your effort. But, even if the citation is ok, please remember that we have to discuss User:Jreferee's argument, that the phrase should not be present in the intro as long as it is not a main topic of the article body. I mean, if the cultural role is characteristic for the K. of Hu., why isn't here even a word in this long article about cultural aspects? The lead should describe political events. Look for instance at the article Republic of Florence, where no refferences to culture are made in the lead, even if it is the starting place of the Renaissance in the 14th century
 * P.S. I've also added the Template:Undue-inline to point out that there is a discussion about the necessity of keeping this idea in the lead, I hope it is the appropriate template for such matters 79.117.164.109 (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I just noticed User:Rovibroni's post at User_talk:Norden1990 and it seems that the original text does not contain this idea => original research 79.117.164.109 (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * p. 687, pp. 145-155 are the source according to Rovibroni's footnote in the article, so I will check that tomorrow. --Norden1990 (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm going to work tomorrow night (between 8 pm and 4 am), thus it is possible that I could provide a precise translation only on Wednesday. --Norden1990 (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem, it is not an emergency. Please also consider offering a more detailed explanation of your disagreement with User:Jreferee's suggestion. The lead should be built as a summary, as a brief presenatation of the main plot. When seeing a reference to culture, the reader expects to find inside the following sections more things about the Hungarian cultural environment, and such information are completely missing. This discordance should be suppressed 79.117.164.109 (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking the source. However the information about Budapest is relevant, so I added it to the History of Budapest article 79.117.173.232 (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Multi-ethnic description move
Could the multiethnic characteristic be moved into the first sentence of the article, so it appears in the hover snippet in other articles it is linked from? Wladthemlat (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

pre- and post-World War I
I seem to recall a time when we didn't have the post-WWI period jumbled into this article - instead the long-time Kingdom was given primary topic status, and the Regency was split off. Wouldn't this make more sense? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary consist of...
It is good to inform people that Kingdom of Hungary consist of 40% Hungarians only and 60% of other nations, which left this "Kingdom of Hungary" after WWI. Separation had been based on cruel attitude and behavior of Hungarian's leaders and politician against these nation, destroying their languages, traditions, religions. Vision was to create one powerful big Hungarian nation in the central Europe. Question is, who are real Hungarians after 150 years of Turkish occupation, where every Hungarian men were instantly killed and Turkish leaders had "Ius primae noctis" with Hungarian women.
 * It's very boring by now. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Absence of any reference of magyarisation issue and its effects to the demographic evolution
Good afternoon! I (as the laic in the way of editing and its rules of wikipedia pages) would like to point the attention of the editors to the lack of any reference of magyarization process, which crucially influenced ethnic map of Kingdom of Hungary (for example the percentage of hungarians in the Kingdom in 1780 was cca 29 % and in 1910 54 %), because lots of other nationality members changed their nationality to hungarian because of the benefits (this is also stated in the independent wikipedia article). The magyarization process is really essential as it changed very much the ethnic map of Kingdom of Hungary and it has consequences up to this day. I thank you for reading and believe in the positive effect of this my contribution.18:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding?
Even if we assume that the post-Trianon Kingdom of Hungary (between 1920 and 1946) was not a multiethnic polity, are we sure that we should deny the multiethnic nature of the pre-Trianon kingom (from 1001 to 1918)? Borsoka (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't deny it. Check the lead before the 6th of March: "The Kingdom of Hungary was a multiethnic[8] state before the Treaty of Trianon...". The lead clarified the the fact, that the pre-1918 KoH was multiethnic. I can only repeat myself; the word "multiethnic" is ok for the pre-1918 KoH (because it was really multiethnic), but it's not ok for the whole (including the interwar period) history of the KoH. I think the former version was correct and based on consensus (check the history). On the other hand, currently there are two "multiethnic" in the lead.--Rovibroni (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And what about the period between 1938/1940 and 1944 when 1,5 millions Romanians, hundred thousands of Serbians, Ruthenians and Slovaks lived in the kingdom again? Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * According to the 1941 census, Hungarians made up 81% of the total population. Do you think it was really a multiethnic state? There were 1 million Romanians at that time, not 1,5 million. What is your opinion about the former version (which clarified the multiethnic nature of the pre-Trianon kingdom)?--Rovibroni (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand: one citizen of five citizens was not ethnic Hungarian in 1941. Furthermore, I do not understand why is the last 26 years of the 946-year-long history of the kingdom is so decisive. Why should not we emphasize that at least for 920 years it was a multiethnic polity? Borsoka (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Just show me an another former country article with a silmilar labelling in the first sentence. Why is it so important that a kingdom was multiethnic? Near every old kingdom was multiethnic (or multireligious/multicultural etc.), it was not a key issue before the 19th century. Well, i've already explained my opinion above, so we should make a compromise. What is your concept?--Rovibroni (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the word "multiethnic" is a bit misleading in the first sentence of the article. Prior to Battle of Mohacs the ethnic Hungarians made up about 80 percent of the population in Hungary. The multi-ethnic characteristics of the kingdom became substantial only after the 16th and 17th centuries. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * According to a scholarly theory ... According to an other scholarly theory, 66% of the inhabitants of the kingdom was Orthodox. None of the theories can be substantiated. What about the Saxons, the Cumans, the Vlachs, the local Slavs, the Croats, the Pechenegs ...? Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I "demand" that the opening sentences of the articles of Kingdom of France, Kingdom of England and Second Bulgarian Empire be altered to feature the word "multiethnic". Fakirbakir (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The theory about "80%" of Hungarians is largely disputed among historians and cannot be presented as a fact in any case. On the other hand, it is clear that KoH was significantly multietnic since the beginning, not since 16-17th century, because e.g. original Slavic population did not dissapear and lived in large numbers not only in (i.e.) Slovakia, but also in present day Hungary cca until 13th century (proven dozen years ago by etymological research i.e. works of Jan Stanislav). Then (long before 16-17th) century German and later Ruthenian collonisation followed. Hungarians had hardly chance to achieve such high numbers. Idea that e.g. Slovaks lived in small numbers somewere in mountains and during Ottoman wars they raised their population to such extent that they happily resettled part of Hungary, Serbia and in smaller numbers also Romania is naive and not criticized only by historians but it is also against common sense. 195.91.8.209 (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the 80 percent is NOT largely disputed. Your opinion has nothing to do with the conclusions of demographic studies. It is a fact that the ethnic Hungarian population was the most negatively affected by the Ottoman occupation and the latter resettlement policies. The central parts of Hungary where the ethnic Hungarian inhabitants lived were constantly ravaged by the wars. Beside the significant waves of migration of Serbs, Romanians, Gypsies, Bosnians (etc) who accompanied the Ottoman expansion in Hungary or (later) escaped from the Ottoman Empire, the kingdom received about one million Germans settlers from western Europe. The resettlement policies by the Habsburg kings were regarded as "anti-Hungarian". Between 1500 and 1800, the ratio of ethnic Hungarians decreased from 80% to 40% (without Croatia). Fakirbakir (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Naive? Arsenije III Čarnojević for instance brought 36,000 Serb families to Hungary in the late 17th century. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is disputed, this is an unquestionable fact. What do you try to present here as an common conclusion of demographers (?!) is not any common concusion, but your lack of general overview about the topic. Discusion about various opinions can be found even in school text books for university students in SR (Marek, M.: Nationalities of Hungary, FF TU, Trnava, 2011) - who made an estimation, when, used source, potential problems, opposite opinions. Of course, they are also very serious objections against such estimations - availability of data from 15th century, purpose of available data (they were collected for different reason), conformance with other indirect sources and the question if we can take such estimations seriously. Neverthless, it is formally correct to characterize kingdom as a multiethnic.Ditinili (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not argue with you. The 80 percent at the end of the Middle Ages is widely accepted by demographers, it's NOT my opinion. Please visit the page of Demographics of Hungary to see the ethnic population estimates. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway, do you agree that Slovakia is a multiethnic state? Fakirbakir (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Demographics_of_Hungary does not present the full spectrum of views and not all the authors referred there are specialists. For instance Andrew L. Simon, who wrote the book Made in Hungary: Hungarian contributions to universal culture is a "board-certifHungarians ied urologist practicing in Brick, NJ". 89.173.96.10 (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have to argue at all. It is obvious that there are different opinions and it is not more "widely accepted" then "widely rejected" (I gave you an example from academic source). Shortly, it is not "common conclusion" of demographers as you present, but disputed "top" estimation. Regardless of particular number, it is formally absolutely correct to say it was an multiethnic state. It was multiethnic in time of its foundation and further changes could change ratio of ethnic groups in favor of the one group or another, but it remained multiethnic (literally hundreds of adopted Slavic local names between 10-13th century shows that also in favor of Hungarians).Ditinili (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * (To User:Ditinili) You seem quite documented about these aspects, do you think you could improve the demographic data from Demographics_of_Hungary? 78.141.103.182 (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't argue that Kindgom of Hungary wasn't a multiethnic country (especially after the Ottoman era), however, 1, it didn't matter before the Age of Nationalism 2, all medieval states (Poland, England, France etc) were dynastical states with multiethnic, multicultural societies. Therefore, it seems exaggeration to state in the opening sentence that KOH was a multiethnic state. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Guys, it's not about the multiethnic nature of the pre-Trianon KoH, we know it was multiethnic. It's about the word in the first sentence, which is a quite strange form, you cannot find in any other former multiethnic state aticle. On the other hand, this article is about the post-Trianon KoH also, which was not multiethnic, that makes the labelling simply false in the first sentece. What is your opinion about the word "multiethnic" in the first sentence?--Rovibroni (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sentence about multi-ethic character is not an exaggeration, it is correct and relevant fact. Modern Hungary has neighbors (autochthonous) who were also part of the KOH since the beginning, they participated on common history of the state and also nowadays they confirm this common heritage (sic!). Contrary to some other examples provided, they had never merged into one modern nation with Hungarians and in addition, trials to challenge this multi-ethnic character of the historical state significantly contributed to its fall. Multi-ethnic character was emphasized already by the founder of the state St. Steven and for KOH was very typical. The information itself is formally correct and the current template Template:Dubious is used incorrectly and without any relevant reason. Ditinili (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not dubious but vague. Why is it so important information to place it in the opening sentence? Why do the first sentences of the articles of Kingdom of France, Kingdom of England and Second Bulgarian Empire not contain the word "multiethnic"? Fakirbakir (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is important for the reasons mentioned above where I explained also some differences. Term "multiethnic" is not extra vague. It is level of details appropriate for the lead of the article. The question for Hungarians here is, if you look on this multiethnicity as on our common positive historical heritage and you sign in bellow it (and maybe emphasize it), or you want to speculate over the terms. Ditinili (talk) 13:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ditinili, i understand your point of view, but this is not a unique case. The Austrian/Habsburg Empire was also a multiethnic state with Austrians (ethnic Germans), Czechs, Slovenians etc. and they also have common heritage. The territory today known as Slovenia was integrated part of Austria before the WWI. Why don't we mention in the first sentence of the Austrian Empire or Duty/Archduchy of Austria (home to the ethnic Slovenians for at least 750 years) article that it was a multiethnic state? The Kingdom of Bohemia was also a multiethnic state (was included Silesia in some period, which is now mostly part of Poland), but i can't find anything in the first sentence about it. Do you think the Czechs want to speculate over the term? I don't think so. Let's see the case of the Russian Empire. It is the predecessor of modern-day Russia, but it was encompassed territorries what are now Ukraine, Belarus or the Baltic states. The Russians, Ukrainians and Belarussians also have a common heritage, due to the coexistence within the Empire for centuries. The question is not what is the opinion of the Hungarians about the multiethnic nature of the Kingdom. The question is why is it so important to put the word into the first sentence in this article, and why isn't it so important in the other similar cases (ex. for the Slovenians). --Rovibroni (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is it so important in the case of KOH? You know well that in the past, Hungarians tried to present this multiethnic historical kingdom as some kind of Hungarian ethnic state where "bad minorities" came only later and somehow stolen "Hungarian land" (e.g. Slovaks were not considered to be autochtonous nation of KOH and active contributors to the process of its creation and development, but artificial nation formed in 15-17th century from Slavic immigrants). Therefore, Slovaks but also other non-Hungarian nations emphasize the multiethnic character and it is not only about your neighbours, but let's look on the first sentence about population of Hungary in Encyclopedia Britannica: "From its inception in the 10th century, Hungary was a multiethnic country."
 * I agree that Bohemian kingdom or other medieval states were also multiethnic. However, KOH is still far from this case. E.g. Bohemian kingdom was founded as a "Czech" state and Czech kings then invited German colonists while Czechs remained dominant population from the beginning to the end. On the other hand, Kingdom of Hungary was already founded as a multiethnic state (there are also mainstream authors who assume that Slavic population statistically dominated in early years), this multiethnic character was emphasized by St. Steven, the ethnic composition significantly much more varied and Hungarians hardly tried to achieve at least 50% in modern censuses. I mean - this is really typical attribute of KOH. I am more curious why it is so important for Hungarians to somehow hid this fact. I honestly don't believe that it is only about  consistency with other articles. Ditinili (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * (1) There have been no Hungarian historians who say that there were no Slavs inhabiting the Carpathian Basin at the time of the Conquest. Hungarian historiography only say that later immigrants from Poland, Moravia, Halych contributed to the increase of the Slavic population in the Northern Carpathians. (2) There is no reference to "bad minorities" in Hungarian historiography. (3) St Stephen did not emphasize the multiethnic character of his kingdom. He wrote of the importance of immigrants. (4) Yes, the Bohemian kingdom was also a multiethnic polity. We should also emphasize it. Borsoka (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop. The current template is "vague" as we agree that "dubius" was totally wrong. It is correct for Encyclopedia Britannica but unacceptable for Wikipedia? No way.Ditinili (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ditinili, nobody wants to hide it. Check the lead before the 6th of March: "The Kingdom of Hungary was a multiethnic[8] state before the Treaty of Trianon...". Well, in my view, it's about "consistency with other articles" and simply a factuality question (the last one about the post-Trianon KoH).--Rovibroni (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I see your last contribution, and i think it's correct.--Rovibroni (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the current version, so I think we have a consensus. 212.81.24.63 (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Bohemian kingdom was founded as a "Czech" state and Czech kings then invited German colonists while Czechs remained dominant population from the beginning to the end." What do you mean? Hungary was founded as a "Hungarian state" ( what else?? ), its foundation was carried out by the Hungarian aristocracy. I think I don't have to explain that the 10th century Hungary possessed a serious military power (due to the steppe heritage). This Hungarian elite started to invite foreign immigrants. At the foundation of the Christian state, the country was regarded as "land of the Turks" or "country of the Hungarians" according to written sources. The Hungarians speaking inhabitants of the kingdom made up the dominant population until the end of the Middle Ages. The lowest estimation for the ratio of Hungarians around 1500 is about 60 percent, the highest is 90. This dominance started to diminish under the Ottoman occupation and almost ceased to exist after the Rakoczi's War of Independence when the percentage of Hungarians fell under 50 percent. The nadir of the Hungarian percentage (40 percent without Croatia) is at the end of the 18th century (after the resettlement policies). If Hungarians had been in minority in the Middle Ages, the population in the Carpathian Basin would have lost their Hungarian mother tongue. The word "multicultural" isn't unacceptable, but compared to other articles on Wikipedia I see double standards (I refer to the opening sentence). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Kingdom of Hungary was not founded as an "ethnic Hungarian" state, but since the beginning it integrated large areas with Slavic population - completely autochthonous, not invited colonists. This integration was done with active support  of local (non-Hungarian) nobility. In this case, I am not speaking about fall of Great Moravia when both ethnic groups were enemies, but about integration process  in time of St. Steven when they already coexisted. After battle of Lechfield, also Hungarian military power was somehow restricted. As you correctly noticed, people did not care about nationality so much - local non-Hungarian nobility accepted new top-level leaders without bigger problems, because it was mutually beneficial and ordinary people did not care at all. Side by side with Hungarian aristocracy, recorded names of early local noblemen from territory of present-Slovakia like Dedo, Kača, Jardan or Bukven are clearly Slavic/Slovak. It has no meaning to discuss exact %, but if you look on early geographic names, it seems that this Slavic population exceeded relatively deep into territory of modern Hungary and the names reflected evolution of Slovak language cca until 13th century. It means that they were recorded from Slavic native speakers. Where Hungarians achieved majority  quickly, the names were "frozen" in particular moment (e.g. Galanta with old Slavonic "G" and "N" instead modern form found on non-Hungarized places like Holetin). This allows to reconstruct size of area with non-Hungarian population also after the moment when both populations culturally merged and archeology findings do not to allow to distinguish  between ethnicity.  Argumentation like "If Hungarians had been in minority in the Middle Ages, the population in the Carpathian Basin would have lost their Hungarian mother tongue" is obviously weak and logically incorrect. Over and above, Slovaks self-identified themselves also as "Hungarians" (sk: Uhor => Onogur, Hungarian) until 1918 as an integral part of "natio Hungarica". Ditinili (talk) 12:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Ditinili, what do you think about the ethnic map File:Ethnic_map_of_11th_century.jpg, uploaded by Fakirbakir, which is used in several articles? 77.234.229.34 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good question! My map is based on Kniezsa's work (an ethnic Slovak from Trstená). Fakirbakir (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not compliant with research results of Slavists who are maybe not able to draw exact ethnic map, but at least to document presence of native Slavic speakers based on local geographic names and density of these names. It is reconstructed how Slovak language evolved, we know when old Slavonic features (e.g. nasal vowels) disappeared or when new features were introduced (e.g. diphthongization or replacement of "g" by "h"). This allows to compare language evolution with recorded names in chronicles and to say if Slavic population was already naturally assimilated or still present in particular time. Such complex analysis covering hundreds of place names is available already since 40's (Jan Stanislav, Slovak south in Middle Ages) including maps, maybe with some corrections of modern Slavists. We can say that map referenced by Fakirbakir is against available data. Ditinili (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ditinili, I would be more careful with toponyms and names. Kniezsa was a Slavist. The autochthonous Slavic population owe their survival to their peripheral location and isolation. Moreover, vast areas of the Carpathians were uninhabited woods in the Middle Ages. Hungary's military power wasn't restricted. The Hungarians stopped their raids to the West after Lechfield, however nobody "dared" to attack Hungary for half a century. The integration of the local Slavic "nobility" was present but marginal (I refer to the period of state establishment). The Arpads even attacked their own ethnic kins (Gyula, Ajtony), I don't think they wanted any coexistence or power share. I did read about your "integration process" theory in Upper Hungary but it is nothing more than a theory IMO. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Ditinili, it would be great if you could add these data to articles in order to create balance between opposing views. Currently there is a lack of Slovak editors here on en.wp and articles about the medieval history of the Hungarian Kingdom are mostly written about Hungarian users. 78.99.106.175 (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Fakirbakir, the fact that Kniesza was a Slavist does not mean that his opinion is final conclusion, especially if he was born in 1898 and it is 2015. "Uninhabitated woods" were an important part of Great Moravia and they were not more or less inhabited as many other parts of Europe. People simply lived mostly around rivers and important trade crossroads. Also nowadays forests cover 44% of Slovakia and there is still enough place for 5 million of people. In that time population was much more lower (Slavic as well as Hungarian) so they had plenty of space for their needs even with primitive farming methods (primitive from the current point of view, in that time Slavs were very skilled farmers). If you dig in ground, it is easy to say if something was destroyed by Hungarians (arrows, burned-out fortresses like in Bojná) or completely preserved and further developed by the same population. We have archeological findings e.g. from territory of Nitra where Slavs lived without any fear few kilometers from early Hungarian military outpost and had no need to move their business to safer place. Sharing of power... let's say that CEO and board of directors changed but operational management preserved their jobs. Why should CEO change operational managers if they are loyal to him and do their work, right? Ditinili (talk) 15:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Ditinili, first of all welcome to our community. Yes, we need more contribution by editors from Slovakia. Acually, that map is based on academic works and it demonstrates that there were significant Slavic and Turkic groups in the Kingdom of Hungary in the 11th-century. This is fully in line with 11th-century sources which mention the presence of the Slavs in the kingdom. Would you specify the reliable sources that you referred to above ("... it is not compliant with research results of Slavists ..."). Borsoka (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, essential work about Slovak settlement in early Hungary is already mentioned Stanislav, J: Slovenský juh v stredoveku [Slovak south in Middle Ages], Národné literárne centrum, 1999. ISBN 8088878497 and volume II, 2004, ISBN 8088878896 . Author belongs to founders of modern Slavic Studies and he is recognized also by modern Slavists. More information about him in English: . Publications contain exhausting analysis of Slavic/Slovak toponyms in southern Slovakia and Hungary, their evolution + maps. Based on his research, we can say (at least) that Kniesza's map referenced by Fakirbakir is more than questionable, it was questionable already dozen years ago and his map definitely cannot be used as something widely accepted or representing mainstream in Slavic Studies.Ditinili (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I take the studies of your modern Slavists with a grain of salt. The last Slovak map I saw of 9th century settlements -subliminally- suggested that the territory of present-day Slovakia in the 9th century was as densely populated as Caliphate of Cordoba. :) Fakirbakir (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? It is interesting that right now, I have archeological journal on my table (Acta Historica Neosoliensia, 15, 2012. ISSN 1336-9148) where Šalkovský P. from Archeological institute of Slovak academy of Sciences summarizes and categorizes cca 100 archeological sites with fortified settlements in the territory of present day Slovakia between 8-10th century. It seems that medieval construction workers somehow ignored your valuable map and built their homes on places where only "Densly forested areas (beech and pine)" and "Sparse Slavs" should live 100-300 years later  (regardless of other archeological sites).Ditinili (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info. Yes there is a list in the article. Its author says that the archaeological evidence substantiating his list of the settlements "would be reviewed and clarified by future research", according to the German summary of the article. Therefore, we can conclude that the list is a scholarly hypothesis (which, of course, could be presented in WP). Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. The author does not say at all these fortifications are only some kind of hypotesis, but he defines 4 categories - from "complexly researched" to not "sufficiently scientifically indicated", where already the first category contain fortifications from various "inbabitated" places. More, fortifications are only one part of the complex image, you should take into account also other settlements, cementaries, etc.Ditinili (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the German summary, the author says: "Der Artikel befasst sich mit der Terminologie, Verifizierung, Erstellung und Chronologie der frühmittelalterlichen befestigten Siedlungen (Burgen) auf dem Gebiet der heutigen Slowakei. Es enthält eine Liste der archäologisch ernsthafte Beweise oder evidenzbasierte befestigten Siedlungen von 8-10. Jahrhunderts und ihre freie Interpretation, welche durch zukünftige Forschungen überprüft und präzisiert werden." If your understanding is correct, the author obviously misinterpreted his own study, because he explicitly states that his list should be "reviewed and verified by future research". Borsoka (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Author did not misinterpreted his study at all, only you are trying to misinterpret his abstract.Ditinili (talk) 12:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. The text that I cited verbatim above was written by the author himself. Borsoka (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, the author never wrote in the article that he discusses only some hypothetical sites, but he divided them into 4 categories. The first category covers sites already complexly researched including fortifications, temples, workshops, etc and he recommends further detailed work and interpretations only for this category. The second category contains sites, where archeologists already found large numbers of artifacts including tools, weapons, hrivnas (means of payment of old Slavs) and proofs about intensive presence of craftsmen and elites. The hypothesis here is not "if settlement was there", but that we will probably also find also fortification there, because these places are on good strategic and hard to be achieved locations (people would probably choose better place for living, if they wanted to live in open settlements). Another hypothesis in this case is, if Slavs reused also fortifications of older cultures. The third category covers unspecified settlements with lower numbers of artifacts, probably fortified. The forth covers sites with randomly found artifacts, poorly or not documented.Ditinili (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now I understand. You say that the author's own summary (vebatim cited above) and what he actually says in the same article contradicts to each other. Interesting. However, I less and less understand your earlier remark ("Šalkovský P. from Archeological institute of Slovak academy of Sciences summarizes and categorizes cca 100 archeological sites with fortified settlements in the territory of present day Slovakia between 8-10th century"). If my understanding is correct, Šalkovský says that there is no archaeological evidence of Slavic fortifications in many cases, but he assumes that there must have existed some form of forts. As I mentioned above, we can present Šalkovský's theory of the hundreds of forts which may have or may have not existed in the 8th-10th centuries. However, I still do not understand why should we delete a map, which is based on toponyms, of the 11th-century kingdom. Borsoka (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe I also had to be more exact. Your understanding is correct, until you understand that old Slavs happilly ignored this map:-) (I will not discuss particular map in two discussions).Ditinili (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Transitions (1918 to 1920)
"Transitions (1918 to 1920)" is the section heading, perhaps temporary, that I inserted for new section 7 between sec 6 Austria-Hungary (1867 to 1918) and sec 8 Between 1920 and 1946. Sections 6 and 8 (previously 6 and 7) are unchanged except that 6 loses the grossly misplaced Treaty of Trianon map and 8 loses its first subsection, now 7.2 Treaty of Trianon (1920). In other words, subsections 7.1 to 7.4 become 7.2 and 8.1 to 8.3

I didn't revise any prose including the map caption and the only prose content that I added is the one-line subsec 7.1 by copy-and-paste from Hungarian Soviet Republic, "Romanian forces entered Budapest on 6 August, putting an end to the Hungarian Soviet Republic." (where three references are attached, [12][13][14]).

That source page is the second of two named in the main hatnote for subsec 7.1 Two short-lived republics. A brief abstract of those two articles, including a few of their formal references, may be all that is needed now. But I would include one- or two-line coverage of the close to WWI at the end of section 6. The Habsburg government surrendered to whom, or it was replaced by another that surrendered to whom.

--P64 (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

About Croatia Hungary 'personal union'
I've changed the related text for there is a RfC on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Croatia_in_the_union_with_Hungary seriously questioning the union existence.--65.220.39.98 (talk) 15:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, why you have problems with the following small information.
What's the problem about Vajk? Hungarians simple know, that father of Stephen I. called Géza, before Stephen was baptized, called him Vajk. He was baptized, when he was older. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE BACK BATTLE MUHI TO BATTLE MOHI! Mohi now called Mohovce, it is in Slovakia, closier to Budapest, and here is a Nuclear Power Station! Muhi is in Hungary, between Miskolc and Tiszaújváros! The Mongol-Hungarian battle was at Muhi!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucka (talk • contribs) 12:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC) OKAY! I will find, how you can read about Cumans' "DOUBLE" settling, and information about Wlachia as vassal pricipility! Bucka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC) The simple way to read about siege of Buda 1541, please read novel "Egri Csillagok" from Géza Gárdonyi. Sorry, I do not know the novell english address. Géza Gárdonyi always was care with Historial facts! Bucka (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Sources - "Egri csillagok" is not a reliable source for WP purposes. "Wlachia" is Wallachia in English. Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Polish language?
Hello User:69.119.175.240, Note that we don't always need sources for stating the obvious. This edit however poses some questions. What part Polish speaking territory was ever a part of the Kingdom of Hungary? This needs a source or a plausible explanation. You have been asked to go to the talkpage to discuss that there (here that is) and that is basically standard procedure. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm... Small northern parts of the former Árva and Szepes counties of the Kingdom of Hungary with Polish majority population (approx. 30,000) were assigned to Poland in the Treaty of Trianon. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I see, you're right. I was thinking of the Zips area at first that wasn't part of Hungary but has been added to (Czecho) Slovakia since. I'll let is stand then but I'll remove the source since that is another Wiki article. One of the maps on that however depicts a tiny piece of Polish speaking territory however. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just one remark. The Zips area was part of Hungary for hundreds of years, although it was pledged to Poland between 1412 and 1772. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to be accurate than Spiš (as a region) was never pledged, only concrete towns and villages. Most of people in Spiš and Orava who speak "Polish" language are Gorals. They do not speak Polish (and they also mostly do not self-identify themselves as Poles), but their own dialect which probably envolved directly from Proto-Slavic or (let's say) early Lechitic dialects) + some Slovak and Polish influences. Ditinili (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for the information. I seem to remember a map situation with some enclaves and the mention of a few towns, but I only vaguely remembered. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You can get rought idea e.g. from this map http://www.slavu.sav.sk/publikacie/referaty_15_mzs_minsk.pdf, p. 27. This is not a historical map, but it (more or less) shows affected regions. Legend: ||| Goral dialects, = Slovak-Polish dialects.Ditinili (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Kingdom of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071206061247/http://www.sulinet.hu:80/oroksegtar/data/100_falu/Feldebro/pages/003_aba.htm to http://www.sulinet.hu/oroksegtar/data/100_falu/Feldebro/pages/003_aba.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 02:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is working.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  08:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary period
This page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medieval_great_powers says: "Kingdom of Hungary	10th-13th c." The current page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary) says : "The Kingdom of Hungary was a monarchy in Central Europe that existed from the Middle Ages into the twentieth century" Which one is it ? Thanks.
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above question. For instance, the Spain was a great power in the 16th-17th centuries, but it did not ceased to exist after losing this position. Borsoka (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You mean that Kingdom of Hungary was a great power between 10th-13th c. and after that not anymore. Thanks, my mistake.
 * In fact, Kingdom of Hungary was great power until 1526 (under Louis I and Matthias I, definitely). --Norden1990 (talk) 11:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * But, it was certainly not "medieval great power" in 1526 because 16th century was not Middle Ages.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * In Hungarian historiography, based on political, legal and historical reasons, Middle Ages lasted in Hungary until 1526. --Norden1990 (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Capital cities
You will also need to add references to EACH of the capital cities in the table. Some of them look highly dubious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.53.245 (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Flag and coat of arms displayed in the info box is highly arbitrary and misleading
You should add a note to the coat of arms and the flag that historically other designs existed. As it stands now, it picks and arbitrary design from the late 19th century, which is not representative of the entire 9+ centuries the articles intends to describe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.53.245 (talk) 10:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Anthem
The current Himnusz was made official in the 19th century, prior to which other anthems existed. This should be noted in the info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.53.245 (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Spoken languages
Highly biased towards the languages that were spoken in the modern era (19th century onwards). What about the language of the Cumans, Pechenegs, Jazygs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.53.245 (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Names of Hungary
So there's a lot of silliness going on here in Wikipedia. The fact that until 1844 Latin was the sole official language of Hungary does not mean that Hungarian or other names were not used to refer to Hungary. In manuscripts, printed books 'Magyarország' (or 'Magyar Ország', 'Ungarn', 'Hungern', etc.) were quite commonly used, and in the spoken language everybody used a term according to their native or learned foreign languages. Thus, "Magyarország", etc. had been used to refer to the country. The current version of the article gives the impression as if the word 'Magyarország' came into existence only in the 1840s. Nonsense. You need to understand that, firstly, Latin was only understood and only written by a very thin elite of literati and nobles. The bulk of the population never had knowledge of it. And secondly, private communication (mail) existed in whatever language the parties preferred (Hungarian, German, Turkish, etc.). That paragraph needs more explanation to avoid the reader thinking Hungary went for centuries by the name "Regnum Hungariae" for everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.53.245 (talk) 10:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, some info was updated, especially the not widely known fact that 1844 Hungarian became the exclusive official language, however as an official language it was already introduced in 1836. Regarding Latin, we have to make a clear distinction of calling something "official" in a modern sense (i.e. enacted by law), as regarding medieval or older terms, i.e. which institutions operated in what langauge, and/or when it was not declared or regaulated what language would be official.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Hungary. 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/20090212202555/http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=9797 to http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=9797

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) 21:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

80 percent of the population was made up of Hungarians before the Battle of Mohács
I added NPOV template, because it is obviously controversial theory, which is the subject of criticism by several notable historians, linguists and archaeologists (i.e. Richard Marsina, Branislav Varsik, Rudolf Krajcovic, Simon Ondrus and others). Although the theory is often cited by Hungarian scholars, it is not generally accepted and it is criticized for its incompatibility with linguistic/onomastic, archaeological and historic research. --Ditinili (talk) 07:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is obviously controversial, but the placing of this template message without fixing the problem is not the best approach. Borsoka (talk) 08:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The best approach, what I can do right now. If we can fix all problems immediately then we don't need such templates.--Ditinili (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought the works you referred to above were available to you and you do not need much time to fix the problem. Nevertheless, I can accept that according to your memories, they wrote something and their writing most probably contradicts this controversial statement in the article. I hope we can fix the problem soon instead of deleting the template message. Borsoka (talk) 10:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Obviously, they are "available to me". Your comments about "my memories" are completely useless. If you were aware of the problem, you could also fix it. --Ditinili (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, if I had been aware of the problem, I should have fixed it. If my understanding is correct, you can fix it. Sorry, I think I stop this discussion. Borsoka (talk) 10:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

National anthem
The "Himnusz" (written by Ferenc Kölcsey) was never the official anthem of the Kingdom of Hungary. Actually it only became officially adopted in 1989, despite it's been sung as the anthem since the 19th century. The actual anthem of the kingdom was a Catholic song titled "Boldogasszony anyánk" (Our Mother, Merry Lady), although it was also never officially adopted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.44.252.27 (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You contradicted yourself in the first part, and you are not discussing any Reliable Sources to support your claim.104.169.21.247 (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Population
In 2004, István Raskó and his fellow scientists in Szeged did archeological research. On the basis of their findings the Szeged reseachers came to the conclusion that the number of invaders was most likely very small because even in these very early graves only 36% of the people had markers indicating Asiatic origin. Fifty percent of them were of purely European origin, and their DNA composition indicated that their ancestors had lived in Europe for at least 40-50,000 years. It is most likely that by the end of the thirteenth century the Asian markers pretty well disappeared from the population mix. By now this Asiatic element has almost disappeared, 84% of Hungarians are totally of European origin and only 16% carry Asiatic markers. ,,I must say that this finding surprised me because I, simply using common sense, figured that if the size of the invading group was very small and the population of the occupied territories large then it would be logical to assume that the invaders would soon be absorbed by the local population. Moreover, I figured, their language would be supplanted for the most part by that of the locals. Anyone who was thinking along these lines was obviously wrong. For some strange reason the linguistic and cultural influence of this small group was important beyond its size while their genetic components pretty well disappeared.,, http://hungarianspectrum.org/2009/11/05/genetic-markers-in-the-hungarian-population-then-and-now/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razvan84 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think if you took a quick look at the history of the marauding Magyars before they settled down, you'd see they decimated the local population(s) - which were not that large to start with. With the disappearance of the Huns and Avars, most historians look at the Hungarian plain as being sparsely populated before Arpad's people arrived. 104.169.21.247 (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The so-called "European" origin was not encessarily limited to geographical Europe, but these markers were also present in Eurasia, as today as well, admixture and migration happened anyway in an overlapping way in all the regions, and also the landtaking Hungarian tribes (tribal-union) were not a uniform composition. There are many studies we could discuss for ages, it is a very complex thing.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC))

Thank you, for your answer. Everyone know, that not only Hungarians lived in the Kingdom of Hungary. István Raskó said that invaders (Hungarians) were smaller group and locals were bigger. This is reliable source based on the material evidences. And practically this say you every historian, that it was multiethnic kingdom. But 80% which estimated by one Hungarian historian without any evidence in 1967, this is not correct, and you know it very well. So if we want to be fair, delete all sources, or accept also other sources please, because according to the Serbian historians = http://www.carsa.rs/zabranjena-istorija-srba-i-slovena-kako-je-stvaran-madjarski-narod/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razvan84 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You argumentation has not any real connection to the material you added, such statements are not just not in the source in such way, but a pure OR based on your own mistaken conclusions. The medieval timeline of the Kingdom of Hungary and historical populations have no connection of the landtaking Hungarian's graves and their DNA research.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC))

Yes they have connection, I really dont understand how you can deny archeological research from 2004, and choose source from 1967 which is based for what ? Tell me something about your source from 1967 ? And why you deny Serbian historians ? This explain me also please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razvan84 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think that less than 20% of the population of Hungary is Hungarian, because genetically more than 20% ofthe population is European? Yes, the estimation for 1526 from 1967 is not the best approach. However, we cannot challenge it based on a genetical research about the 10th-century population. Borsoka (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Razvan84, answers for the rest: I did not deny anything or anybody, the third time I tell you the sources did not say or concluded what you stated by your mistaken WP:OR. I do not own any source from 1967. On your last statements in your edit log, please analyze first our Core content policies. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2019 (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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Horthy 1943.jpg

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ADAMN7117.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)