Talk:Lajos Kossuth

Topics
Kossuth County named after him and statue of him in front of the court house of said county is a first hand source.

Kossuth made some sound recordings - apparently he is the person in this category whose birthdate is most distant. Any comments?

Jackiespeel 17:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

The Minority LAW
Dear Irji2012, don't delete such an important event in the article.

"Kossuth play an important part in the shaping out of the law of minority rights in 1849. It was the first law which recognized the minority rights in Europe. It gave minorities the freedom to use their mothertongue at local administration, at tribunals, in schools, in community life and een within the national guard of non-Magyar councils. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.165.65 (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "This legislation gave minorities the freedom to use their mother tongue at the local administrative level, at tribunals, in primary schools, in community life, and even within the na- tional guard of non-Magyar councils" it is a verbatim quote from the book (copyvio) Irji2012 (talk) 08:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Danube Confederacy
The article did not mention the his plans for the Danube Confederacy. Could anybody write something about it? Laszlo

In his early exile years he wrote about a large confederation of the nations of the Danube valley (with Hungary at the helm). Although in later conversation he admitted himself this plan was tactical at best and he conveniently forgot about it once Hungary's position was better upon the Ausgleich, several Hungarian post-WW1 proponents of more peaceful co-existence of those peoples remembered and forwarded his project later on. This is what I remember but I am just an enthusiast and a reader not a professional historian, so do not trust me too much. varbal 00:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Kossuth considered the Ausgleich a treason. --89.134.163.209 (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Mistake
Iam not sure about magyar descent of Kossut. I know only about Slovak descent from his father side because Zemplin was part of Hungaria with majority of slovaks and in Turiec were not hungarians except officers. And his muther was german. So I would like to see resources where is it written that he had magyar descent. He was only product of Magyarization.


 * He was a Hungarian of Slovak ancestry. The Kossuth family had lived in Hungary and spoken Hungarian for several hundred years. (see: István Deák, "The Lawful Revolution"--good book!) And he considered himself a Hungarian, he spoke Hungarian beautifully (HUGE thanks to whoever put up the link to that sound clip of him, I almost lost my breath when I realized I was really hearing Kossuth's own voice! :)), he fought for Hungary's freedom. One thing that is sort of unusual about Hungary, and that a lot of people don't seem to understand, is that being Hungarian is more based on conviction and loyalty than on actual blood and DNA (and some might say more a state of mind than an ethnicity. LOL) Some of our greatest heroes, whether they are freedom fighters or kings or poets or musicians, came originally from Slovak/German/Croatian/Serbian ancestors, but let no one say they were any less Hungarian than any of "pure Magyar blood." So in response to your request for "resources where it is written that he had magyar descent"--respectfully, sir, that's rather irrelevant. :) K. Lástocska 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Essentially there is no such thing as a genetically hungarian person and has not been for hundreds of years. According to modern etnoscience, even when the seven hungarian warrior tribes came in to occupy the Carpathian Basin in 895AD, only some 5,000 people of them were "blood-hungarians", that is directly descended from the finno-ugric ethnic ancestry. They were the chieftains and nobles of the seven tribes and their close families. The commoneers were of most diverse origin, who joined someplace mid-route, turkish, avars, schytes, etc. and a not small part of them were jewish in religion. What held these bunch of people and tribes together was only the hungarian language, which is a weird one and not belonging to the common indo-european cathegory.
 * No offense, but maybe your ass is weird, not the hungarian language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.132.184.37 (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

According to modern etnoscience, even when the seven hungarian warrior tribes came in to occupy the Carpathian Basin in 895AD, 40000-70000 of them were "blood-hungarians", that is directly descended from the finno-ugric ethnic ancestry.

Kossuth is not a Magyar name... you can find the Košut/Košuta/Košusko variation in several slavic conutries.


 * Some 1100 years has elapsed since and there is absolutely no chance to find a blood-hungarian any more (maybe a very few among the szekler or csango people, who are ancient ethnic hungarians in small minority in present day Romania). So it really doesn't matter what your blood-line is, your hungarian-ness is defined by magyar language and culture. Because hungarian language is strange and very complex to learn, this cathegory is practically good enough. Biggest hungarian poet Sandor Petofi was born to serbian father Petrovich and slovak mother Maria Hruz ... what made him top hungarian poet and hero was his decision to cultivate magyar language instead of slavics, although he was fluent in all three. 212.108.200.69 23:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Most of the kids in Hungary can easily learn hungarian language in 2 or 3 years. It's not strange and complex to learn. Maybe it is too complex to you. You are a living example of a racist, hungarophobe person.

It's not true. Slovaks as an ethnic group or identity didn't exist util the katwe 15th century. They were mixature of lot of nations. Therefore "pure Slovaks" have never existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.217.98 (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Editorial about Kossuth in New York Times Oct 31 1851 (pdf)
In the NYT free archives. The same day's paper mentions that he's on his way to England. 

Jer ome (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

voice recording
The links to the recording of his voice don't work. Can someone fix them please? K. Lásztocska talk 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

slovak roots of kossuth
you do disagree with wp article: The predominantly Slovak ancestors of the Kossuth family had lived in the county of Turóc. If Kossuth say: there was no Slovak nationality, that don't mean, he has not slovak ancestors - no one doubt at it. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 20:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither statement (dis)proves that Kossuth is a "Hungarian of Slovak descent" - the topic is best discussed on the Kossuth talk page István (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * please see only article in wp:hu about his uncle Kossuth György, for Lajos was not possible to change his genealogy. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Another wiki can not be used as a source or as a reference.Baxter9 (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

why does encyclopedia britanica think his father was "of Slovak stock"? http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/322773/Lajos-Kossuth --Petethebeat (talk) 08:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth Jane Weston
Her mother was a direct descendant of Elizabeth Jane Weston!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Jane_Weston See: http://www.adunanal.hu/html/dream/marcius/szorenyi.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.117.225 (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed a bit...
Hi all

I Removed some POV language from "Family" that read (claimed by Slovak extremists) This is not encyclopedic and pointless, not all who claim he has Slavic roots are "extremists" e.g Dr. S. Kirschbaum. for example states he has Slovak/Slavic roots and the good professor is not an extremist.

Furthermore Lajos Kossuth's uncle Gyogy Kossuth or Juraj Kosut, was a Slovak patriot and early politician, So there is basis to the claim, although I find it irrelivant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petethebeat (talk • contribs) 07:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Some General Issues
The article overall contains a lot of opinion and editorializing, rather than being neutral. For example, general criticisms (as well as general praise) of Kossuth should only be included if it is cited from specific sources. Lack of citations in general is also a major problem. Some paragraphs seem to be taken directly from a specific source, if so, a citation needs to be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rememberthemaine (talk • contribs) 05:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"Louis"
I'm going through the redirect Louis Kossuth changing the obviouly Hungarian articles, and those that refer to him during or before the Hungarian Revolution, to be Lajos Kossuth.

I presume that he anglicised his name while in the United States, but the only thing in the article here is the references that refer to him by this name. For now, I am leaving the US articles alone (e.g. USS Mississippi) but if this was indeed his given name while in the US I think we should have a short sentence saying so. I don't really have time right now to source this, as I am doing a lot of gnoming around this area, so merely note it in passing.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea the article is already at that name. Hobartimus (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * User:Monkap suggested he may have taken that name when in France. I still need to check this. Si Trew (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternative names
About my edits 1, we are talking about present time (and/or after the 1918), as the article says "The most important memorial outside the present-day borders of Hungary is a statue in Rožňava" therefore alternative names have nothing to do with this so I removed them (WP:PLACE, use modern names). After all, alternative names can be seen at those articles if this info is required and at the local wikipedia projects. About the origin, wikipedia can`t be used as a reference per WP:CIRCULAR.Adrian (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Minority Rights
The original sentence:

Kossuth play an important part in the shaping out of the law of minority rights in 1849. It was the first law which recognized the minority rights in Europe. It gave minorities the freedom to use their mothertongue at local administration, at tribunals, in schools, in community life and een within the national guard of non-Magyar councils.

For User:Irji2012 (alias banned user Iaaasi) You provocated a meaningless and unnecessary edit war, and you broke the "three revert rule" of wikipedia. (just look the Revision history of the Lajos Kossuth article.) You are not a lawayer, and therefore you don't know the deatils of copy rights. The sentence contains only the simple listing of the chapter titles of the old law. Therefore, it isn't belong under the protection of copy rights. I know Kossuth is depicted very negatively as a slovak "national-enemy" in Slovakian history books (even in primary and secondary schools). Therefore you think that your act was a "slovak patriotic duty". You just simple try to pretermit and hide -at any cost- this important act of Kossuth from the readership of the article. It is simple nationalistic issue from your part.

Eulogy
Koertefa reverted an edit without explanation. The edit is for Kossuth's eulogization immediately after his death at a notable New York venue, by a venerated scholar... and, though only an implication, by the eulogizer's illness and death due to the loss of Kossuth. I'd like to see Koertefa weigh in on why he or she reverted it. Dovid (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is the entirety of the 11th edition Encyclopedia Britannica article on this subject
… so that we may begin attributing any plagiarized text to its actual author:"KOSSUTH, LAJOS [Louis] (1802-1894), Hungarian patriot, was born at Monok, a small town in the county of Zemplin, on the 19th of September 1802. His father, who was descended from an old untitled noble family and possessed a small estate, was by profession an advocate. Louis, who was the eldest of four children, received from his mother a strict religious training. His education was completed at the Calvinist college of Sárospatak and at the university of Budapest. At the age of nineteen he returned home and began practice with his father. His talents and amiability soon won him great popularity, especially among the peasants. He was also appointed steward to the countess Szápáry, a widow with large estates, and as her representative had a seat in the county assembly. This position he lost owing to a quarrel with his patroness, and he was accused of appropriating money to pay a gambling debt. His fault cannot have been very serious, for he was shortly afterwards (he had in the meantime settled in Pesth) appointed by Count Hunyady to be his deputy at the National Diet in Pressburg (1825-1827, and again in 1832). It was a time when, under able leaders, a great national party was beginning the struggle for reform against the stagnant Austrian government. As deputy he had no vote, and he naturally took little share in the debates, but it was part of his duty to send written reports of the proceedings to his patron, since the government, with a well-grounded fear of all that might stir popular feeling, refused to allow any published reports. Kossuth’s letters were so excellent that they were circulated in MS. among the Liberal magnates, and soon developed into an organized parliamentary gazette (Orszagyulesi tudositasok), of which he was editor. At once his name and influence spread. In order to increase the circulation, he ventured on lithographing the letters. This brought them under the official censure, and was forbidden. He continued the paper in MS., and when the government refused to allow it to be circulated through the post sent it out by hand. In 1836 the Diet was dissolved. Kossuth continued the agitation by reporting in letter form the debates of the county assemblies, to which he thereby gave a political 917 importance which they had not had when each was ignorant of the proceedings of the others. The fact that he embellished with his own great literary ability the speeches of the Liberals and Reformers only added to the influence of his news-letters. The government in vain attempted to suppress the letters, and other means having failed, he was in May 1837, with Weszelenyi and several others, arrested on a charge of high treason. After spending a year in prison at Ofen, he was tried and condemned to four more years’ imprisonment. His confinement was strict and injured his health, but he was allowed the use of books. He greatly increased his political information, and also acquired, from the study of the Bible and Shakespeare, a wonderful knowledge of English. His arrest had caused great indignation. The Diet, which met in 1839, supported the agitation for the release of the prisoners, and refused to pass any government measures; Metternich long remained obdurate, but the danger of war in 1840 obliged him to give way. Immediately after his release Kossuth married Teresa Meszleny, a Catholic, who during his prison days had shown great interest in him. Henceforward she strongly urged him on in his political career; and it was the refusal of the Roman priests to bless their union that first prompted Kossuth to take up the defence of mixed marriages.

He had now become a popular leader. As soon as his health was restored he was appointed (January 1841) editor of the Pesti Hirlap, the newly founded organ of the party. Strangely enough, the government did not refuse its consent. The success of the paper was unprecedented. The circulation soon reached what was then the immense figure of 7000. The attempts of the government to counteract his influence by founding a rival paper, the Vilag, only increased his importance and added to the political excitement. The warning of the great reformer Szechenyi that by his appeal to the passions of the people he was leading the nation to revolution was neglected. Kossuth, indeed, was not content with advocating those reforms—the abolition of entail, the abolition of feudal burdens, taxation of the nobles—which were demanded by all the Liberals. By insisting on the superiority of the Magyars to the Slavonic inhabitants of Hungary, by his violent attacks on Austria (he already discussed the possibility of a breach with Austria), he raised the national pride to a dangerous pitch. At last, in 1844, the government succeeded in breaking his connexion with the paper. The proprietor, in obedience to orders from Vienna (this seems the most probable account), took advantage of a dispute about salary to dismiss him. He then applied for permission to start a paper of his own. In a personal interview Metternich offered to take him into the government service. The offer was refused, and for three years he was without a regular position. He continued the agitation with the object of attaining both the political and commercial independence of Hungary. He adopted the economic principles of List, and founded a society, the “Vedegylet,” the members of which were to consume none but home produce. He advocated the creation of a Hungarian port at Fiume. With the autumn of 1847 the great opportunity of his life came. Supported by the influence of Louis Batthyany, after a keenly fought struggle he was elected member for Budapest in the new Diet. “Now that I am a deputy, I will cease to be an agitator,” he said. He at once became chief leader of the Extreme Liberals. Deak was absent. Batthyany, Szechenyi, Szemere, Eotvos, his rivals, saw how his intense personal ambition and egoism led him always to assume the chief place, and to use his parliamentary position to establish himself as leader of the nation; but before his eloquence and energy all apprehensions were useless. His eloquence was of that nature, in its impassioned appeals to the strongest emotions, that it required for its full effect the highest themes and the most dramatic situations. In a time of rest, though he could never have been obscure, he would never have attained the highest power. It was therefore a necessity of his nature, perhaps unconsciously, always to drive things to a crisis. The crisis came, and he used it to the full.

On the 3rd of March 1848, as soon as the news of the revolution in Paris had arrived, in a speech of surpassing power he demanded parliamentary government for Hungary and constitutional government for the rest of Austria. He appealed to the hope of the Habsburgs, “our beloved Archduke Francis Joseph,” to perpetuate the ancient glory of the dynasty by meeting half-way the aspirations of a free people. He at once became the leader of the European revolution; his speech was read aloud in the streets of Vienna to the mob by which Metternich was overthrown (March 13), and when a deputation from the Diet visited Vienna to receive the assent of the emperor to their petition it was Kossuth who received the chief ovation. Batthyany, who formed the first responsible ministry, could not refuse to admit Kossuth, but he gave him the ministry of finance, probably because that seemed to open to him fewest prospects of engrossing popularity. If that was the object, it was in vain. With wonderful energy he began developing the internal resources of the country: he established a separate Hungarian coinage—as always, using every means to increase the national self-consciousness; and it was characteristic that on the new Hungarian notes which he issued his own name was the most prominent inscription; hence the name of Kossuth Notes, which was long celebrated. A new paper was started, to which was given the name of Kossuth Hirlapia, so that from the first it was Kossuth rather than the Palatine or the president of the ministry whose name was in the minds of the people associated with the new government. Much more was this the case when, in the summer, the dangers from the Croats, Serbs and the reaction at Vienna increased. In a great speech of 11th July he asked that the nation should arm in self-defence, and demanded 200,000 men; amid a scene of wild enthusiasm this was granted by acclamation. When Jellachich was marching on Pesth he went from town to town rousing the people to the defence of the country, and the popular force of the Honved was his creation. When Batthyany resigned he was appointed with Szemere to carry on the government provisionally, and at the end of September he was made President of the Committee of National Defence. From this time he was in fact, if not in name, the dictator. With marvellous energy he kept in his own hands the direction of the whole government. Not a soldier himself, he had to control and direct the movements of armies; can we be surprised if he failed, or if he was unable to keep control over the generals or to establish that military co-operation so essential to success? Especially it was Görgei (q.v.) whose great abilities he was the first to recognize, who refused obedience; the two men were in truth the very opposite to one another: the one all feeling, enthusiasm, sensibility; the other cold, stoical, reckless of life. Twice Kossuth deposed him from the command; twice he had to restore him. It would have been well if Kossuth had had something more of Görgei’s calculated ruthlessness, for, as has been truly said, the revolutionary power he had seized could only be held by revolutionary means; but he was by nature soft-hearted and always merciful; though often audacious, he lacked decision in dealing with men. It has been said that he showed a want of personal courage; this is not improbable, the excess of feeling which made him so great an orator could hardly be combined with the coolness in danger required of a soldier; but no one was able, as he was, to infuse courage into others. During all the terrible winter which followed, his energy and spirit never failed him. It was he who overcame the reluctance of the army to march to the relief of Vienna; after the defeat of Schwechat, at which he was present, he sent Bem to carry on the war in Transylvania. At the end of the year, when the Austrians were approaching Pesth, he asked for the mediation of Mr Stiles, the American envoy. Windischgrätz, however, refused all terms, and the Diet and government fled to Debrecszin, Kossuth taking with him the regalia of St Stephen, the sacred Palladium of the Hungarian nation. Immediately after the accession of the Emperor Francis Joseph all the concessions of March had been revoked and Kossuth with his colleagues outlawed. In April 1849, when the Hungarians had won many successes, after sounding the army, he issued the celebrated declaration of Hungarian independence, in which he declared that “the house of Habsburg-Lorraine, perjured in the sight of God and man, had forfeited 918 the Hungarian throne.” It was a step characteristic of his love for extreme and dramatic action, but it added to the dissensions between him and those who wished only for autonomy under the old dynasty, and his enemies did not scruple to accuse him of aiming at the crown himself. For the time the future form of government was left undecided, but Kossuth was appointed responsible governor. The hopes of ultimate success were frustrated by the intervention of Russia; all appeals to the western powers were vain, and on the 11th of August Kossuth abdicated in favour of Görgei, on the ground that in the last extremity the general alone could save the nation. How Görgei used his authority to surrender is well known; the capitulation was indeed inevitable, but a greater man than Kossuth would not have avoided the last duty of conducting the negotiations so as to get the best terms.

With the capitulation of Villagos Kossuth’s career was at an end. A solitary fugitive, he crossed the Turkish frontier. He was hospitably received by the Turkish authorities, who, supported by Great Britain, refused, notwithstanding the threats of the allied emperors, to surrender him and the other fugitives to the merciless vengeance of the Austrians. In January 1849 he was removed from Widdin, where he had been kept in honourable confinement, to Shumla, and thence to Katahia in Asia Minor. Here he was joined by his children, who had been confined at Pressburg; his wife (a price had been set on her head) had joined him earlier, having escaped in disguise. In September 1851 he was liberated and embarked on an American man-of-war. He first landed at Marseilles, where he received an enthusiastic welcome from the people, but the prince-president refused to allow him to cross France. On the 23rd of October he landed at Southampton and spent three weeks in England, where he was the object of extraordinary enthusiasm, equalled only by that with which Garibaldi was received ten years later. Addresses were presented to him at Southampton, Birmingham and other towns; he was officially entertained by the lord mayor of London; at each place he pleaded the cause of his unhappy country. Speaking in English, he displayed an eloquence and command of the language scarcely excelled by the greatest orators in their own tongue. The agitation had no immediate effect, but the indignation which he aroused against Russian policy had much to do with the strong anti-Russian feeling which made the Crimean War possible.

From England he went to the United States of America: there his reception was equally enthusiastic, if less dignified; an element of charlatanism appeared in his words and acts which soon destroyed his real influence. Other Hungarian exiles protested against the claim he appeared to make that he was the one national hero of the revolution. Count Casimir Batthyany attacked him in The Times, and Szemere, who had been prime minister under him, published a bitter criticism of his acts and character, accusing him of arrogance, cowardice and duplicity. He soon returned to England, where he lived for eight years in close connexion with Mazzini, by whom, with some misgiving, he was persuaded to join the Revolutionary Committee. Quarrels of a kind only too common among exiles followed; the Hungarians were especially offended by his claim still to be called governor. He watched with anxiety every opportunity of once more freeing his country from Austria. An attempt to organize a Hungarian legion during the Crimean War was stopped; but in 1859 he entered into negotiations with Napoleon, left England for Italy, and began the organization of a Hungarian legion, which was to make a descent on the coast of Dalmatia. The Peace of Villafranca made this impossible. From that time he resided in Italy; he refused to follow the other Hungarian patriots, who, under the lead of Deak, accepted the composition of 1867; for him there could be no reconciliation with the house of Habsburg, nor would he accept less than full independence and a republic. He would not avail himself of the amnesty, and, though elected to the Diet of 1867, never took his seat. He never lost the affections of his countrymen, but he refrained from an attempt to give practical effect to his opinions, nor did he allow his name to become a new cause of dissension. A law of 1879, which deprived of citizenship all Hungarians who had voluntarily been absent ten years, was a bitter blow to him.

He died in Turin on the 20th of March 1894; his body was taken to Pesth, where he was buried amid the mourning of the whole nation, Maurus Jokai delivering the funeral oration. A bronze statue, erected by public subscription, in the Kerepes cemetery, commemorates Hungary’s purest patriot and greatest orator.

Many points in Kossuth’s career and character will probably always remain the subject of controversy. His complete works were published in Hungarian at Budapest in 1880-1895. The fullest account of the Revolution is given in Helfert, Geschichte Oesterreichs (Leipzig, 1869, &c.), representing the Austrian view, which may be compared with that of C. Gracza, History of the Hungarian War of Independence, 1848-1849 (in Hungarian) (Budapest, 1894). See also E. O. S., Hungary and its Revolutions, with a Memoir of Louis Kossuth (Bohn, 1854); Horvath, 25 Jahre aus der Geschichte Ungarns, 1823-1848 (Leipzig, 1867); Maurice, Revolutions of 1848-1849; W. H. Stiles, Austria in 1848-1849 (New York, 1852); Szemere, Politische Charakterskizzen: III. Kossuth (Hamburg, 1853); Louis Kossuth, Memoirs of my Exile (London, 1880); Pulszky, Meine Zeit, mein Leben (Pressburg, 1880); A. Somogyi, Ludwig Kossuth (Berlin, 1894).

(J. W. He.)"

Please begin noting which material from this source was drawn without standard academic attribution of source. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Very poorly sourced and likely plagiarised biographical article
In its current state, this article is very poorly sourced, drawing large swaths of material from a 1911 encyclopedia without attributing it to that author (James Wycliffe Headlam)—which, though the material is out of copyright, is not acceptable scholarly practice (presenting anthers words as WP editor's own).

Moreover, that source is dated, and was clearly flawed in its time, and so does not represent current acceptable ideas of European historiography.

I have pasted the text from which large parts of this article were drawn, apparently initially, above. I will attend, as I can, to the shortcomings of copy-and-paste, dated text, but other editors should deal with this apparent plagiarism as well. Cheers. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Lajos Kossuth. 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/20081025003907/http://kosutm.aspx.sk:80/kosutovci/kosut_kossuth.htm to http://kosutm.aspx.sk/kosutovci/kosut_kossuth.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051027033731/http://kincsestar.radio.hu:80/rolunk/hengern.jpg to http://kincsestar.radio.hu/rolunk/hengern.jpg

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Introductary Paragraph
The opening paragraph seems... kind of off, for a biographical article? The majority of it seems to be about his reception in American culture, which doesn't feel appropriate. I may try to restructure it, if I can find the time & energy. PvOberstein (talk) 03:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Names
Dear IP,

it seems you don't wish to understand the point. So I try to enlight it again, I did not say he would not be a Slovak or would not be an ethnic Hungarian, I said notable names are listed of a person that was known by others by another name, see i.e. the article about György Dózsa, where it is also listed how Romanians called him, although he was not an ethnic Romanian. According to your philosophy, then even the English name should have been removed...excuse me, but this is evidently false in my opinion.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lajos Kossuth. 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/20050908200542/http://hungary.ciw.edu/kossuth/ to http://hungary.ciw.edu/kossuth/

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) 19:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lajos Kossuth. 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/20090213232626/http://www.noveslovo.sk/clanok.asp?id=15700 to http://www.noveslovo.sk/clanok.asp?id=15700
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018185913/http://www.kossuthhouse.org/ to http://www.kossuthhouse.org/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050207070543/http://www.thehungarypage.com/kossuth.htm to http://www.thehungarypage.com/kossuth.htm

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) 17:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Daguerreotype?
User has recently removed one of the images from the article, on the grounds that it was certainly not a daguerreotype of the man, but a photograph of an engraving, which was common for the time period. The file page on WikiCommons gives this article in Fotóművészet as the source, which appears to call the image a daguerreotype and gives a detailed history of the image (although the text is in Hungarian, which I can only access via the imperfect Google translation). Considering that the image is used in other articles (like Revolutions of 1848, and several on the Hungarian Wikipedia), and that it is still called a daguerreotype on the file page, I think this should be clarified. Renerpho (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I have undone the removal, until there is evidence that the image description is wrong. It is currently described as an "Early photograph of [a] Lajos Kossuth (1847) Daguerreotype", which appears to be accurate. Renerpho (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Ancestry
Kossuths mother was 1/16 german according to family tree. Baìerle magyarized to Pajor. She was also partly polish: Zmeskal. Beniczky is slavic, probably slovak but Tamas Beniczky born 1475 married magyar Thuróczy. All Beniczkys then married non-slovaks. Mother was more polish, german and magyar in either case than slovak. Maybe less than 1/64 slovak. Please check familytree. 83.185.241.121 (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Kossuths mother was ca 1/32-polish; Zmeskal.
 * Mother was ca 57/64-part magyar, so why can't she be of magyar ancestry?
 * (Ethnical magyars tend to bee ca 1/4 slavic and 1/4 germanic, so she had unusually much magyar ancestry!) 83.185.241.121 (talk) 14:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is mother of Lajos Kossuths father: Beniczky 83.185.241.121 (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Kossuth line was also mostly magyar 83.185.241.121 (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)