Talk:Treaty of Trianon/Archive 2

Relevance of economic power in the introduction?
What make this so important that it needs to be included in the introduction?


 * The winning powers included one economic mainstream within Europe, that is the nations that had gone through rapid progress in the 19th century due to industrial revolution and, to a certain extent, to colonialism (Britain, France, and to a smaller extent Italy). Austria-Hungary also experienced economic progress especially in the late 19th century (without relying on colonization), but remained a European country with a relatively underdeveloped economy.

-- nyenyec &#9742; 01:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Consequences
It should be mentioned how the effects of the treaty determined Hungarian foreign and military policy leading up to and including WW2. -- nyenyec &#9742; 01:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

House of Terror
What does it have to do with the treaty of Trianon?

-- nyenyec &#9742; 01:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Hungary was indeed a real House of Terror for the non-Hungarian ethnic groups which resented heavily the occupation of their lands by colonial Hungarians and where permanently under the daily agression of the Magyarisation Laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.150.157 (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Tragedy
As to the discussion about whether Trianon is considered as a national tragedy for Hungary or only for Hungarian nationalists, I can confirm the former. But to cite a neutral source, according to Loney Planet Hungary (by Steve Fallon, 2000): "Trianon became the singularly most hated word in Hungary, and the diktátum is often reviled today as if it were imposed on the nation only yesterday." Vay 13:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Is this a mainstream view or is it constrained to right-wing nationalists, similar to the Pan-Germanism still embraced e.g. by the Austrian FPÖ. Jbetak 14:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering it as a tragedy is fairly mainstream, seeking territorial revision is constrained to the extreme right (without representation in the Parliament). Vay 15:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your answer. Would it be fair to compare the mainstream views of Trianon to those of the Battle of Mohács? Obviously, Trianon was not followed by an enemy invasion, but the similarities are IMHO striking. Jbetak 15:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would be fair. It is common to describe Hungarian history as a sequence of tragedies (lost battles, failed revolutions): conquest of Tartars, Mohács, Világos (where the revolutionary army finally capitulated in 1849), Trianon, Nyilas takeover in 1944, and finally 1956. It would be interesting to know whether these experiences lead to the pessimism that is so all-pervading in Magyar culture, or this pessimism determined somehow the way of telling the story. BTW the period between 1867 and 1918 is among the few that is regarded as successful by most people (thus further distancing Magyar POV from that of others regarding this era primarily as the period of Magyarization). Vay 15:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Trianon Treaty was not a tragedy, but an act of justice and a liberation for everibody, except for the Hungarian right-wing nationalists. But, if actually the Treaty of Trianon is seen as a national falure by the mainstream of the Hungarian people, this fact would be a real tragedy for the entire Europe, because an entire people is still imperial and expansionist-minded. What is really the percent of the Hungarians which are against Trianon (expansionist-minded and right - wing extremists) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.150.157 (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Hungarian "expansionism" and "anti-trianonism" are not the same anyway. There's no serious political force in Hungary backing the idea of expanding Hungary to neighbour countries. Even most right-wing extremists would like a peaceful and particular revision of this Treaty dictatum, what is of course was everything else than an act of justice and liberation (if it was, of course the second world war couldn't broke out, and of course those artificially created slavic states that came to their poor existence after the first world war, like Yugoslavia, Czehoslovakia etc., would outstand even now, but they don't; and Cosovo would remained a part of Serbia. But Serbs got their own Trianon now, I commiserate them a little, cause as a Hungarian, I can imagine they feel the same what Hungarians felt after Trianon; but in the long run they get what they deserved.). And in Hungary there is no party, even the extreme right ones what would think or say Magyar tanks should occupy the capital of the neighbour countries (I must add my father took part in the communists' occupation of Czehoslovakia in 1968 but he wasn't proud of it at all, and I'm not, too), but what about Slovak and Roman extremist like Ian "We Will Go With Our Tanks Against Budapest" Slota? And there is no Parliament party in Hungary what is minded reign together with extremists, but what about Robert "I like This Slota-Fellow" Ficzo?  89.133.11.44 (talk) 22:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Plebiscites
PANONIAN insists on the fact that plebiscites were held in Alba Iulia and Novi Sad, reverting a version by HunTomy. According to a neutral (Croatian) source: "For this reason, it is surprising that the winning forces of the First World War did not adopt the principle of self-determination (which they themselves emphasized in the context of Wilson’s 11 Points) and conduct a plebiscite in Vojvodina." 1 According to a Romanian source, there was indeed a plebiscite in Alba Iulia: a plebiscite of all Romanians in Transylvania and Hungary, and later an other one in Cernauti: a plebiscite of all Romanians. 2. It is fair to tell that this was not a vote by all inhabitants of the territories concerned, the electorate having been the Romanian community. I will not revert to HunTomy's version, but wait for PANONIAN's sources. Vay 19:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's disgusting how extreme nationalists hustling here who say that there were plebiscites in the historical Hungary. There was some congresses where some extreme sepetarists declared something supperted by foreign powers. Abominable.... HunTomy 2006.01.19.

I wrote now that there were no plebiscites held in the "Hungarian majority areas", because it is why you object to this, right? But to say that there were no any plebiscites and that non-Hungarian peoples were separated from Hungary against their will is simply wrong. They did said what is their will. PANONIAN  (talk)  17:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, I missed that edit. That is OK for me, of course I don't think Romanians were not happy to unite with Romania, etc. Vay 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

--


 * What "Hungarian majority areas" existed at that time? Vasile 17:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Roughly where Hungarian communities still live today. Szeklerland, eastern part of Partium, several cities of Partium and Transylvania (Oradea, Cluj, etc.), southern part of Slovakia including Kosice, and norther part of Vojvodina including Subotica. It would have been useful to held plebiscites in ethnically mixed areas like Bratislava, etc. as well. It's history now, so you might even admit that it wouldn't have been a bad idea after all. Vay 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It would have been a very bad solution for those peoples. --Vasile 21:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Holding plebiscites? Why? Vay 22:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * How do imagine the peoples of 1918, after 4 years of war? Had any Alsace and Lorraine, Czech & Sudetland or Poland plebiscite? An unfriendly plebiscite was kept in Sopron, between friendly Hungary and Austria. --Vasile 23:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Had plebiscites been held, there might have been no 2nd WW. Vay 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not in 1939, but in 1919. --Vasile 00:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

--
 * Hmmm, there's an interesting article by one Sabin Gherman on the previous version of the page by HunTomy. Who is that guy? Maybe you should write an article about him... BTW, don't be naive, HunTomy, Romanians _were_ happy to unite, Wesselényi warned already before 1848 that the historic country was in danger... I guess Gherman is a Transylvanist, or simply a guy fed up with usual E-European provincialism (we could cite Endre Ady about Hungarians and the magyar ugar as well...) Vay 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not naive. Who wants to live in a balcan level country? Transylvania became part of an Eastern Europen country, which is poor, undeveloped and corrupt. Vojvodina now belongs to the balcan. Very joyful. And i would not talk about the level of Subcarpathia (which is now belongs to Ukraine)... Endre Ady did not want to seperate from Hungary just wrote critics about the social system of the contemporary Hungary. Or you can read "És ha Erdélyt elveszik?" (And what will happen if they took Transylvania?) from Ady from 1912

And remember: the "magyarisation" was a natural process not dictatorial like romanians, czeckslovaks and yugoslavs did after 1920. This is a great difference... (This was added by 81.182.105.231 dsl51b669e7.pool.t-online.hu).

Haha you are so funny! Milanmm 14:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Vojvodina "do not belong to the Balkans". As an native Vojvodinian I can tell you that Vojvodina is still in Central Europe where it always was, and present day Serbia is both, Balkanic and Central European country, as well as Serbs are both, Balkanic and Central European people. So, please do not teach me where I live, ok? PANONIAN  (talk)  22:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask some people from the real central or western europe about serbia. Serbia is primarily balcanic. I know what is the balcanic character.

The question was about Vojvodina. The geographical, physical and natural region Balkans (one of Europe's 11 such regions) ends at the Sava river and at the Danube in Serbia, i.o.w. Vojvodina is not part of the Balkans. If we add a historical point of view, it is not part of the Balkans all the more. Juro 20:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

From the "real" Central Europe? And I live in the "false" one then, right? Please... As Juro explained, geographical borders of Balkans are clear. As for cultural borders of Balkans some people claim that those are same as the borders of the former Ottoman Empire in Europe, thus most of the neighbouring parts of Hungary, Romania, and Croatia are culturally Balkanic too, but that was not the point. PANONIAN  (talk)  20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

New Hungarian state vs continuity
I think it is wrong to put "new Hungarian state" in the first paragraph since the state following the Trianon dictate was the same Kingdom of Hungary, albeit dismembered. Also, instead of a simple "agreement", I would insist to put "enforced agreement" since Hungary did not voluntarily renounce two thirds of its historical territory but the country signed the treaty under duress.81.183.183.18 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Over-emphasizing the distinction between Hungary and Kingdom of Hungary is clearly POV - Kingdom of Hungary existed until the end of WW2. For Vasile: Whether Hungary having been independent or not, created as a "new state" or not, see the above discussion and the article and discussion on Kingdom of Hungary, where a compromise has been reached. Vay 03:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The state of 1918 is clearly a continuation of that of 1867. It achieved the sovereignty and was totally separated by Austria: that was the sense of the expression "new independent state". Despite the name still in use until 1945, it seems that "kingdom of Hungary" ceased to exist in 1918. I doubt that kingdom of Hungary actually existed between 1867 and 1918. The army was the essential and traditional element connecting the monarchic institution with a people or nation in 19th century. (Info in Ausgleich article is very unclear anyway.) --Vasile 02:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

If the Kingdom of Hungary did not exist after the Compromise, what did the acronym k.u.k refer to? (just a brief question...). The truth is, the Kingdom of Hungary had retained its existence since St. Stephen's coronation, even the Austrian emperors ruled the country as Hungarian kings (they had to be crowned by St. Stephen's Holy Crown in order to be considered legal rulers). Thus Hungary was not a hereditary province of Austria, but as an independent kingdom, part of the Habsburg Empire. (As opposed to like Slovakia, which name is always used by Slovak nationalists for the medieval history of Northern Hungary, it never existed as a separate administrative entity, it was always an integral part of the Kingdom of Hungary.) 84.2.101.172 12:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear fascist, I can repeat that 100 times if you want. The term Slovakia exists at least from the 15th century. It is now used by ALL Slovaks and everybody else in Europe (not by "nationalists"). Regions in the world have their names, even if they are no administrative entities or states. And nobody has ever claimed that there was a POLITICAL entity called Slovakia, that is your personal invention to have at least something you could critise. Juro 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear "drótos tót", regions usually follow administrative or historical boundaries, and the region you calling Slovakia was called "Felsőmagyarország" or "Felföld" or "Felvidék" for the most part of history.


 * Dear nomadic Asian fascist (I hope I have used the equivalent of your above 19th century insult), "Felsőmagyarország" referred to eastern Slovakia and in the 19th century to the territory to the north of the Danube, Tisza and including the Carpathian Ruthenia (I see no similarity to the territory of Slovakia and no chronological relevance). And above all, it was completely inofficial in the second sense. And dear nothing-knowing fascist, "Felvidék", as you can read in Hungarian literature of the 19th century on this topic, did not mean anything, the word was a neologism and referred to "the territories to the north of the place of the speaker" or the "northern mountanous territories" or sometimes was just confused with "Felsőmagyarország". The Hungarian language name for Slovakia in the late 19th century was "Szlovenskó". Irrespective of this, this is an international encyclopedia, and English books, Czech, French, German etc. used (also) the term Slovakia for the "territory inhabited by Slovaks". It is that simple. Juro 02:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong again, just as everywhere, first of all, "drótos (tinker) tót" was not an insult but an occupation, just as "szódás tót". The words "Felsőmagyarország, Felvidék and not the least, Felföld" have been extensively used throughout history, Felföld exactly meant the mountaineous area north of the Alföld (Plains), here is an example from a Hungarian literary gem: Péter Bornemissza: Siralmas énnékem
 * (Sorrowful song):
 * Az Felföldet bírják az kevély nímötök
 * Szerémséget bírják az fene törökök


 * (Rough translation:
 * Our upper land is in the hands of the haughty Germans
 * Szerémség is in the hands of the hellish Ottomans).


 * Examples like this exists galore. And btw, the "Land inhabited by Slovaks" would have had no meaning in the Middle Ages (it could have only represented some villages in the North), since the urban population and the intelligentsia was mainly composed of Hungarian and (mostly) German ethnics.Enigma1 22:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Szlovenszkó" was used briefly after WW1, when everybody was shocked by the emergence of the new state, and they simply translated the Slovak term. As for Slovakia, it couldn't have been a widespread indication, if even 1911 Britannica (with a clear pro-Slovak bias thanks to Scotus Viator) does not mention it: [|2]. Vay 05:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Szlovenszkó was also used before WW1, however rarely, sure, I just wanted to point out that it even exists in Hungarian. As for Britannica, no the encyclopedia has the opposite bias, quite naturally, and it does not mention it (I have not checked that I have to believe you) because it was no administrative unit or state at that time. The biggest Czech encyclopedia, for example, mentions it. There are even encyclopedias in the 17th century that mention it, again - rarely, sure. Irrespective of this "encyclopedias", the term was used as a completely normal term at least from the 15th ncetury onward by the locals, especially by the Germans (Slowakey etc.). And, a Slovak nationalist would inform you that the term "Slovak land" occurs in the documents even in the middle ages (the translation of the Latin term is however disputed for that time). As for Upper Hungary, in the 19th century, even the Slovaks used ALSO to say that they live in Upper Hungary (i.e. in northern Hungary), since Slovakia and Upper Hungary are different terms, but intercept in a part. My point above was that nobody has ever claimed that there was a STATE called Slovakia in 1917, so I do not understand, what I have to react to this constant heckling here, actually. Juro 01:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You can not seriously assert the independece of KH between 1867 and 1918 without proving the existence of aspects of a modern sovereign state: national citizenship, external policy, national army and security force, and international recognition of the independent state. --Vasile 12:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * During the millennial history of the Hungarian Kingdom, the utmost sovereignty was exercised by the Holy Crown of St. Stephen, according to the Holy Crown Doctrine (Szent Korona Tan), even kings were subjected to the Crown (this is a unique feature of the Kingdom of Hungary, since no other nation had a crown that had such a sacred connotation), even Habsburgs had to be crowned with the Holy Crown in order to be accepted as legitimate rulers. Also an important aspect that the Hungarian kings were called "Apostolic King of Hungary", hence the apostolic cross in the Hungarian coat of arms. The main point is that the Kingdom of Hungary clearly existed separately from the hereditary provinces of Austria, like Bohemia (Czechia) for example, which had been an integral part of the German (and later, the Austrian Empire for most of the Middle Ages).Enigma1 22:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that Hungarians themselves claimed in 1918/1919 that their new independent state have no continuity with the Habsburg Kingdom of Hungary, and therefor their new state was not a kingdom, but REPUBLIC (Hungarian Democratic Republic and Hungarian Soviet Republic after it). Problem is that Hungarians in that time did not know what will be the borders of their new independent state. When borders of independent Hungary were defined in 1920, Hungarian nationalists who were not satisfied with these borders changed the story about the continuity and now claimed that Hungary have continuity with the former kingdom (the country was even officially named kingdom again, no matter that it did not had a king, but only regent). Thus, the whole story about continuity is a story about "right" to territories outside of the Hungarian borders, and its purpose is to justify border changes in favor of Hungary. Of course, the real question is why now in the 21st century somebody have need to talk about continuity of Hungary. Just imagine how would look if somebody would start talking about continuity of France or continuity of United Kingdom. PANONIAN  (talk)  00:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with continuity, since in 1918/1919, for a brief period, Hungary was a republic and a Soviet republic, so obviously, they rejected any kind of continuity with the old kingdom (the Communists even went as far as renouncing their claim to Hungarian territorial integrity, however it is true that later on, Béla Kun's army beat the crap out of the Czechs and nearly liberated Felvidék, but this is off topic). As soon as legitimacy was restored in the name of the Holy Crown, continuity was restored, as well. Enigma1 22:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from continuity, a section detailing the economic and cultural consequences of the Trianon Dictate would be most welcome, describing that the main driving force behind the treaty was to disempower a united, and highly prosperous economic region by dissolving the historical Hungary into more backward puppet states. Also, a forced and systematic destruction of Hungarian cultural instututions (schools, theaters, universities - like in Pozsony and Kolozsvár), mass expulsion and deportation of Hungarians should be documented objectively. Enigma1 22:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The country was NOT a prosperous region, it was a very backward country, especially Hungary. People were leaving the country in masses (hundreds of thousands). So, read a book of fairy tales or something and let normal people do their work, OK ? Juro 06:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't like the truth very much now, do you? Yes, there was mass emigration to America (mostly from poverty-ridden areas which were mostly inhabited by Rusyns or - incidentally - Slovaks) but the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and Hungary as a whole underwent its most prosperous growth period in the area, much of the current infrastructure (roads, railways, does the Kassa-Oderberg railway ring a bell?) was built in that period. But even after the dissolution of the Monarchy, Hungary always remained much more prosperous and westernized than the successor states. Take Czechoslovakia for instance in which the so-called "state-forming" nations were much less advanced than the "subjugated" Germans and Hungarians. 81.182.209.170 20:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Cease fire lines or borders
Hello PANONIAN   (talk) ! I think these borders became international borders by signing of the Treaty of Trianon by all sides. There were a lot of military movement in the region after November 1918 and I don't think, that you would accept that the border of Romania was in the middle of Budapest. I agree however, that there were only little clashes with the Serbian Army after December 1918 and the Serbian occupation zone existed as Serbian territory in this period (incuding today's South Hungary). The fully recognized international borders of Hungary were set by the Treaty of Trianon.

kelenbp 13:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, the SCS Kingdom was internationally recognized as a country in 1919, and all its provinces that belonged to former Austria-Hungary were recognized as part of this country (The Treaty of Trianon only confirmed this with minor border corrections in the north). The point is that, the cease-fire lines from November 1918 were international borders (temporar ones of course) of SCS Kingdom when it was recognized as a country. Also, the Serbian occupation zone you mentioned officially was called like this only until November 25, 1918, when the area officially became part of Serbia. I do not know much about borders of Slovakia and Romania, but in the case of SCS Kingdom, it were not only cease fire lines. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever we say, the SCS Kingdom has fallen apart twice in history (in 1941 and in the 90's), the penultimate product of Trianon (except for Romania) is finding a miserable end right before our eyes, it is a question of time before Bácska votes for independence and reunion with Hungary Árpád 22:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hahahaha. Good joke. You made my day. :))) PANONIAN   (talk)  02:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just watch it happening, Kosovo is next. What will remain afterwards from the Balkan's "pariah state"? Árpád 02:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, what ever you say... However, this is an encyclopaedia, not a political forum, thus, you should find some other place to present your "opinion". PANONIAN   (talk)  20:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Then stick to the truth and stop claiming ridiculous things like Pécs being a Serbian town while objective statistics prove that the Hungarian ethnic area went as far down as Újvidék...


 * There is no conflikt between my and your data. Your data is from 1910 and mine is from 1715 (much has changed during these 200 years because of the Magyarization policy). PANONIAN   (talk)  12:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are also data before the Turkish occupation when the population of the territory of the current Vojvodina was overwhelmingly Hungarian. The beginning of the 18th century shows a low number of Hungarians because they took the lion's share of fighting against the Turks so obviously their share in the population dwindled. This can also be ascribed to the settlement policy of the Habsburg Empire.


 * You only forgot to mention that before the Hungarian conquest in the 10th century, the population of present-day Vojvodina was overwhelmingly Slavic, and the research of the toponyms showed that these Slavs spoke the same language as Serbs. It is questionable whether all of them were Serbs by their national feeling (some of them certainly did), but linguistically and ethnologically they were no different than Serbs. PANONIAN   (talk)  22:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There were Slavic population all in the Pannonian Plain between the 8-10th centuries but they were not modern nations like Serbs or Slovaks. In the case of the Slovaks it is sure that they are descendants of this Slavic population (although there were constants migration over the Carpathian Mountains in the Middle Ages). But the Serbs became an independent nation in the 9-10th century deep in the Balkan Peninsula, and the Slavs of the Great Plain assimilated into the Magyars in the early Middle Ages. I don't think there is any continuity of population between them and the Serbs. Zello 22:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And I did not said that there was a continuity between most of the Serbs who migrated from Rascia in the 14th century and their ethnic cousins that lived in Vojvodina in the 10th century, but there is also no continuity between Magyars who lived in Vojvodina in the 16th century and Magyars who migrated to Vojvodina from the north in the 18th and 19th century. PANONIAN   (talk)  23:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Only one important difference: although the Magyars of Bácska were killed or fled in the Turkish Wars, and you are right that there is no continuity in persons, the Magyars as a nation or ethnicity are continous with themselves since the 10th century until now. Serbs are similary continous with themselves since the 9th century - but Serbs are not continous as a nation with the SLAVS of the Pannonian Plain. At most they are related to them as they are related to Croats, Slovenes etc. Zello 00:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that is where you wrong because present-day Serbs are continuous as a nation with the Slavs of the Pannonian Plain. It is part of these Slavs that moved from the Pannonian plain to Balkans in the 6th century, and present-day Serbs are descendants of these Slavs. The Serbs that settled in Balkans a century latter were in fact the Sorbs (Lusatian Serbs), who mixed with Pannonian-Balkan Slavs, and transfered their name to them, but lost their Sorbian language. Present day Serbian language did not derived from Sorbian, but rather from Ukrainian, which confirm the Slavic migration from western Ukraine to Pannonian plain and Balkans. Present-day Serbs, Croats and Slovenes are all descendants of these Slavs. PANONIAN   (talk)  01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously what you wrote is the best argument against the national continuity between Serbs and Pannonian Slavs. These people didn't form a specific nation - they were a branch of that ancient Slavic people that migrated and settled in different areas of Central-Europe and later formed different nations. Every Slavic people are related to each other. But related is not "the same" - this is what I say. Even the Croats are not Serbs but a different nation. So you cannot claim that Pannonian Slavs were Serbs, they were Pannonian Slavs. They lost the opportunity to develop into a unique Slav nation and establish their own country because of the arrival of the Magyars. So they disappered in an early stage. But the medieval Magyars of Bácska were Magyars because the Magyar nation already took shape around the 11th century in the Pannonian Plain (as the Serb also but not in Vojvodina). Zello 02:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems that we do not have same difinition of a term nation. It is not name that define a nation, but common culture, language, religion, etc. The point is that ancestors of the Serbs lived in Pannonian plain before they settled in Balkans and the question whether they in that time called themselves Serbs, Slavs, Wends or Russians is really irrelevant for this question. Of course, I agree that these early Pannonian Slavs are also ancestors of Hungarians, thus the continuity of both nations would be the same. However, only Serbs kept the language and culture of their ancestors (Pannonian Slavs), while Pannonian Slavs who became Hungarians lost that language and culture and adopted language and culture of Hungarians instead. The second question is about that medieval Serb and Hungarian nation. The modern nations were formed in the 18th and 19th century, and in medieval times the term nation had very different meaning. When we speak about medieval Hungarians and Serbs we rather speak about citizens of Hungary and Serbia than about modern nations. In that time, the Hungarian was simply somebody who lived in Hungary, and the Serb was somebody who lived in Serbia. Much more important question is what language was spoken by people who lived there because modern ethnology classify nations by the language they speak. If we compare the language situation in Vojvodina in history, we can see that from the arrival of the Slavs in the 5th century to the 13th century (800 years), dominant language of population of Vojvodina was Slavic (and not just any Slavic, but exactly that which was later called Serbo-Croatian), between 13th and 16th century dominant language was Hungarian (300 years), and after 16th century until the present day it was Slavic again (500 years). Point is, if somebody was called Hungarian because he lived in medieval Hungarian state, but if Hungarian was not his native language, we cannot say that he was same with modern Hungarians, neither you can claim continuity between those people and modern Hungarians. PANONIAN   (talk)  10:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Another very interesting question is a dialect spoken by Serbs in Vojvodina. See the map of Serbo-Croatian dialects: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0:DijalektiStok.jpg The Serbs in Vojvodina speak their own dialect, which is, besides Vojvodina, spoken elsewhere only in the territory of former banovina of Mačva which also belonged to the medieval Hungarian state. If Serbs of Vojvodina and Mačva were only migrants from the south, they would speak some of the southern dialects, but they do not (as opposite example, it is evident that Serbs of Bosanska Krajina and Croatia speak the same dialect as Serbs of Herzegovina, thus it is clear that they migrated from there). It is also important that all these dialects from the map are very old - Serbs settled in Bosanska Krajina and Croatia in the 16th century and they still speak the Herzegovinian dialect, still not formed their own. PANONIAN   (talk)  11:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd have a few things to say but once we can follow the discussion in a more proper place, for example the History of Vojvodina article :) Zello 14:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Wherever you find it suitable. PANONIAN   (talk)  15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"national tragedy" clause
The sentence "Many Hungarians consider the treaty a national tragedy still today." is correct. I can't find any sources right now asserting this, but in fact if you google for "Trianon" and see the bulk quantity of heated discussions in Hungarian going on on various sites, that should be proof enough. KissL 07:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * From the Hungarian viewpoint, it can be considered a national tragedy: dismemberment of a major regional power, loss of 2/3 of territory and population, establishment of an artificial border cutting through organically developed regions.Árpád 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes for Hungarians Treaty of Trianon is tragedy but for Slovaks thats Victory in independence from that time hatefull empire called Hungary of whatever Yes its our history and We are Independent now. As I been reading that we was last developed region in Hungary..Yes its true Hungary was bad master for as Slovaks...User:Marek.kvackaj 23:32, 9 october 2006 (UTC)

You had a new state, but it did not function, because it had most economic ties to Great Hungary! You had a vast land, full of minority! Didn't you think you got too much? Hungary didn't start any wars, Austrians did! I respect you achieved independence, but you got too much land, you should have reality sense, even today.

As a matter of fact, the Magyar government was keen on war (though Tisza was against it). But in any case, the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy couldn't have survived without a victorious war. This was not one. As to being bad masters, it is true, that around 1890s there was a wide-scale Hungarinisation (magyarosítási) campaign in Hungary. The mad Hungarian elite was sawing the branch of the tree on which they sat. Nevertheless, many Hungarian did feel that Trianon was a national tragedy (which, of course, was not). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacz (talk • contribs) 13:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Minorities
Speaking about Trianon only the 1920 official census numbers matter not before or later ten years, although the 1930 and 1941 censuses are mentioned to indicate the process of slow decline until WW2. This is not a place for Czechoslovakian propaganda numbers which lack any official census background. In Hungarian sources I didn't find any distinction in the 1920 census like Slovak or "Slovak-speaking" so present any evidence that these higher numbers were part of the 1920 official census and not a Czechoslovakian claim. Zello 19:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And did you find them for 1910 (e.g.)? Because it is very difficult to find such detailed data in full - I myself found them (for 1910) only by coincidence. Secondly, it is interesting that you call Hungarian figures "Czechoslovak propaganda numbers" as soon as you do not like them. (If I added real "propaganda" numbers the whole list would be even much worse for you) Finally, I have given the source; and after all, I can even delete the Czechoslovak estimate, the Hungarian numbers are quite enough.Juro 19:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, and as for your notice board remark regarding the "slow decline": 1920: 145 000 Slovaks vs. 1930: 100 000 Slovaks [using your (wrong) numbers] - do you call this a "slow" decline??? I got used to Hungarian propaganda in the meantime, but this cannot be even qualified as an exaggeration.Juro 19:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The "wrong" numbers are from Romsics' book about Hungary in the 20th century. He says that these numbers show the the minorities according to the MOTHER-LANGUAGE data of the 1920 census. So where are your higher numbers from és what they mean? Zello 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Quote from the source "the official Hungarian statistical data from 1920 say that 399,170 citizens speak [speak well/have a good command - difficult to translate] of the Slovak language. In reality there were far more Slovaks living in Hungary....". I do not think that someone is able to invent such an number (the other numbers in the book are correct) and given that determining the "Slovak etc. speaking Hungarians" (that was the official name in 1910 at least) was a standard in Hungary (both in 1910 and in 1930), I see no reason to assume that this was not the case in 1920. Juro 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole population of Hungary increased between 1920 and 1930 so higher numbers are natural for minorities. There is no reason to use misleading 1930 data for 1920 when we have an official census in 1920. Zello 19:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, note that I do not have the "speaking" data for 1920 except for the Slovaks (unfortunately), therefore you cannot compare the 1920 "non-speaking" data and the 1930 "speaking" data (other type of question). E.g. the number of Germans cannot have increased and did not increase from 500 000 to 800 000 - that would countradict historic facts and demographic rules. In reality, the lower number are persons where it cannot be denied that they are Germans, while the 300 000 difference are those Germans where something has been found to declare them not "fully" German although they spoke German. Secondly, I have rounded down the figures. Thirdly, I could agree with you if the differences would be in several percentage points or so, but they are always at least in 50 p.p. or much higher and that cannot be explained by a general population increase. And after all, if the whole population increased, how does it come than that the percentage of Slovaks decreased by 1/3 then (a remark: in reality it stayed at around 400 000 - 500 000 all the time until after WWII, because that number was counted (be)for the population exchange and it perfectly fits the higher figures).Juro 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Juro, the total population of Hungary was 7,9 million in 1920, 8,6 million in 1930 and 9,3 million in 1941 (without regained territories). This is a rapid increase in absolute numbers so highly misleading to use 1930 data for 1920. It is possible that the situation was different with the different nationalities ie. probably Germans increased in absolute numbers and Slovaks decreased, I don't know. But the only possible way to establish post-Trianon data is to use the 1920 census numbers and mention in brackets your claim that "the official Hungarian statistical data from 1920 say that 399,170 citizens speak [speak well/have a good command - difficult to translate] of the Slovak language" together with the citation. Although I don't understand at all - if the 1920 census numbers show "mother-language" as Romsics said what is this 400 000? Probably there were another question for second language knowledge or I don't know. Zello 05:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You will not believe me, but I perfectly understand what you mean (the first thing I looked at was the 7.9 vs. 8.6 difference). I will try to divide this into several points:
 * Point 1: Forget the 1941 numbers
 * Point 2: The problem is that Hungarian censi distinguished between "true" (e.g.) Slovaks (what they classified by mother tongue, the most frequently spoken language etc. - whatever) and "untrue" Slovaks (what was classified as "Slovak speaking Hungarians" in 1910 and "Slovak speaking persons (minus "Slovaks")" in 1930). In reality however, this distinction does not make sense, because no Magyar would make himself "Slovak speaking", because using Slovak was virtually prohibited in practise and Slovaks were literally hated ("shepherds" etc.) and there was no reason to learn that language (rather the opposite). In other words the true number of Slovaks is the second number, i.e. that including "Slovak speaking Hungarians" (or whatever the name).
 * Point 3: I am not sure that the "mother tongue" is what was really asked in 1920; it also frequently claimed that the mother tongue was asked in 1910, but that is not quite correct, the actual fact inserted in the forms was the most frequently spoken language in everyday life.
 * Point 4: Now, the problem is that we could forget these differences between the lower and the higher numbers, if they were low (and that would be nothing new in the field of ethnicities), but the differences are huge both absolutely and relatively (more than 50% up to more than 100 % ) and this cannot be ignored.
 * Point 5: As for the population increase: (1) There were no substantial population moves from /to abroad between 1920 and 1930 - at least not in these magnitudes. (2) The total population change between 1920 and 1930 was 8% - now compare that with the 50% and more differences for the minorities - that just does not make any sense. It is evident that this is a pure issue of  census definitions. (3) The fertility of Slovaks was higher than average, therefore they would have to increase and not decrease. The fertility of Germans was lower than average, therefore they would have to decrease and not increase etc.
 * Point 5: Let me repeat the official Hungarian numbers for Slovaks (rounded): 1910 (in 7 counties only) - 128 000 "Slovaks" + 158 700 "Slovak speaking Hungarians"; 1920 - 141 882 "Slovaks" + (399 000 - 141 882) "Slovak speaking Hungarians"; 1930 - 104 819 "Slovaks" + n/a (n/a for Slovaks; 473 000 counted for the population exchange in 1946). This clearly shows that 300 000 - 400 000 is a minimum estimate for the true number of Slovaks.
 * Point 6: It would be very helpful to have the "speaking" (or whatever the names) numbers for the other nationalities for 1920 as well, but I am unable to find them. Don't you have detailed results for the 1920 census somewhere in a library or so? (Libraries are a problem in the summer, I know).

Juro 18:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I also understand your point but I think the distinction wasn't between "true" Slovaks and "untrue" Slovaks but Slovaks by mother tongue/most frequently spoken language and Slovaks by national identity. The first should be the higher number because in the post-Trianon atmosphere it wasn't very popular to declare yourself Slovak although the language remained. There are other reasons mostly the process of assimiliation, merging of Hungarian (citizen) identity with Magyar identity etc.

But you are right: the only way to decide in the numbers is to look up more data. The National Library is open yet (until 1 August) so I will go there in Saturday and try to collect every information we need from the 1920 and 1930 census publications together with exact questions. Zello 14:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Excellent (and note that I put the word true under quotation marks). Juro 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is good work you are both doing, but I must say some of it borders on OR. Aren't there any systematic studies of these data by academics with clear conclusions we can cite?  Perhaps multiple differing views?  Dsol 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Searching for official census data is no original research. And as for analyses, I do not know such analyses, I only know mentions in (other) texts; in any case, there are no well-known studies or so about this. Juro 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct data
I went to the National Library and found the census data at last.

There were the same two questions in 1920 and 1930:


 * "What is your mother language?"
 * "What languages do you speak?"

There was no question about nationality in Hungarian censi until 1941.

The second question was about bilingualism and produced much higher data for minorities as the first one (of course the same is true for the Magyar language - it was mother language for 7'147'053 people in 1920 and was spoken by 7'722'441 people at the same time).

It is true that the percentage, the absolute numbers and even bilingualism was decreasing in the next decade. I have the same data for 1930 and all numbers are lower.

There is no way to establish the number of minorities from the second question. That question only shows how much people were able to speak Slovak. Among them certainly were people whose parents or grandparents spoke Slovak as a mother language but the family began assimilation. But there were people also who lived together with Slovaks and were able to express themselves on the language of their neighbours. It is the same as many Slovaks in present-day Komárno and Csallóköz speak some Hungarian but they are not Magyars at all. The high number of German speakers is obviosly a cultural phenomenon as German was widely taught in Hungarian secondary schools (ie. the same as the high number of English speakers now). We are not able to separate these two groups among the bilinguals in lack of other data. The problem wasn't raised by me but demographic historian József Kovacsics who presented the census data. Zello 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that the second question (if it really went exactly like you are presenting it here - you probably mean "speak" not "spoke") resulted in data like "xy speak French", "xy speak English" etc., or what? This is very strange for a population census, if this was really the whole question without any additions. I can hardly imagine that the results contain the numbers of e.g. English speakers, but they should then... And as for Slovaks, the situation was different in 1910, there were no Slovak schools whatsoever anymore and it is impossible that there were 150 000 Slovaks, but also 150 000 (!) Magyars (unless they have at least a Slovak parent) speaking that language just because they are their neighbours, especially given that in 1910 the use of the language in the public was sanctioned (although officially not, of course). Such numbers - i.e. resulting only from "neigbourship" - would be impossible even in present-day Finland or so. Juro 19:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are English-speakers, French-speakers, Italian-speakers also (with smaller numbers as these languages were only spoken by the elite). As for the Slovaks there can be different groups among this plus 250 000 people:


 * People with Slovak ancestry who were more fluent in Magyar than Slovak but they didn't forget the language of their parents totally
 * Magyars living in Slovak villages who learned some Slovak
 * Magyar civil servants who lived in Upper Hungary, learned Slovak there but left after Trianon (or anybody living in former Upper Hungary in the decades before Trianon)

I'm sure that the most populous of this groups were people with Slovak ancestry but 1, nobody knows their number; 2, they declared themselves that their mother language was already Magyar that time. Zello 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not able to insert my references but here are:


 * József Kovacsics: Magyarország történeti demográfiája : Magyarország népessége a honfoglalástól 1949-ig, Budapest : Közgazd. és Jogi Kiadó ; 1963 Budapest Kossuth Ny.


 * Lajos Thirring: Az 1869-1980. évi népszámlálások története és jellemzői [kész. a Központi Statisztikai Hivatal Népesedésstatisztikai Főosztályán], Bp. : SKV, 1983

Zello 20:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "unable to insert" ??? Juro 03:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I see in the history section that you gave your reference but I don't see it in the article. But why? Zello 12:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I deleted it yesterday :)) (it is not used in the article anymore as a source). Juro 18:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Juro is right here. -- Eliade 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

- - - - The sum total (10.4%) with a non-Magyar mother tongue, does not equal the individual percentages listed in the article, the sum of which is only 9.0%. I suspect the percentage figure for German should be higher. I cannot tell if it is the total that's wrong or the individual figures. Could someone check? The following is the current text in the article: According to the 1920 census 10.4 % of the population spoke one of the minority languages as mother language:

Bardwell 17:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 551,211 German (6.9%)
 * 141,882 Slovak (1.8%)
 * 23,760 Romanian (0.3%)
 * 36,858 Croatian (0.5%)
 * 17,131 Serb (0.2%)
 * 23,228 other Southern Slavic dialects, mainly Bunjevac and Šokac (0.3%)


 * The sum of these numbers is neither 10.4, nor 9.0, but 10.0%:-) Tankred 23:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words
The article is full of them:

etc. bogdan 15:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Some demographers believe...
 * On the other hand, many argue that ...
 * Many Hungarians consider ...
 * Some claim that the real motive...

Second-class country
It's well accepted the idea that Austria-Hungary became a second-class country. Indeed Austria-Hungary also experienced economic progress especially in the late 19th century (without relying on colonization), but remained a European country with a relatively underdeveloped economy, a second-class regional power. Can one argue that is not true? -- Eliade 07:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (I wrote this before reading Zello's contribution:) Basically, this part is correct, but the question is: How is this relevant for the treaty? Because whether A-H grew or not in the late 19th century (it grew like all poor countries do when catching up with the advanced countries), the point is that it remained a very poor country compared to the west. Also, the development and level in Hungary was different than the development and level in the Austrian part and even within these parts there were huge differences in some cases. So, as far as I am concerned, I do not get the point here. Juro 17:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the treaty had economic consequences and there is reliable literature about this. If somebody have time and sources it is possible to make good contributions in this topic. Now this is not the case, we have only a simplified sentence that doesn't make the article better. The article was fairly NPOV until now and I would like preseverve this against attempts like "second-class country" or "ouright racist treaty". Zello 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the rest of course, but note that economic CONSEQUENCES (i.e. changes after the treaty) for the countries in question are something totally different from the general economic situation BEFORE the treaty, especially given that the sentence referred to a territory covering not only the KoH. Such issues belong to the A-H article (and actually they are already there).Juro 18:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree - this is why I deleted the sentence with my revert together with the other problematic new paragraph inserted by Giordano. Zello 18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There were big differences in the economic development of the countries and provinces of Austria-Hungary. We are speaking about a country which was so varied that contained Tyrol and Bukovina. These differences were several hundred years old and products of totally different historical development. The Monarchy as an integrated econimic unit had a positive effect on the underdeveloped provinces in the second half of 19th century. There was a process of regional integration and economic development which was broken by WW1. As for second-class country - Austria-Hungary was traditionally a member of the "European concert", one of the main powers of the continent because of it size and military strength. Tsarist Russia was more underdeveloped than Austria-Hungary but wasn't considered a second-class country at all. Zello 17:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the way it decayed and desintegrate very quickly after only some decades, it's a measure of "great" it was.-- Eliade 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary was the successor of the Habsburg Empire which existed in Europe almost 500 years. That's not some decades. Zello 18:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Here it's about something else. Austria lost so much during Habsburg so that they accepted an alliance with Hungary. Even this solution proved to be a temporary solution. -- Eliade 10:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Every solution is "temporary" because every country disappear sooner or later. The Habsburg Empire with its 500 years lifetime certainly existed long enough to shape the history of Europe. Zello 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It may also be worthwhile to enter into the analysis that today many of the successor states are economic disasters. The only consistent exception to this is Austria (and even that only after WWII). Slovenia has been successful for the last decade, if this tendency keeps up, all the better, on the other hand Transylvania nowadays is much more below the European average than it was during Habsburg times, it is hardly above the Third World. One has to wonder whether the purpose of the treaty was to create a new Dark Ages. And as far as Juro's comment: no, Czechoslovakia was never an economic superpower. The Czech side was reasonably industrialized, and this had some benefits, but to consider CS among the world's strongest economies is a severe overstatement. (Have you driven a Skoda before it became VW?)

The A-H was a regional superpower with a reasonable economic status. It was not behind the "West" economically: the situation of those who emigrated to the US was hardly better after emigration, since they usually fell for the "in America the streets are paved with gold" myth. It is also questionable in the case of Fiume, Istria, Friuli, Trieste whether they were better off during the monarchy than afterwards. Considering ethnic strife certainly not.

At last: to suggest ethnic bias or racism is not inappropriate nor is it POV. After all the article itself states that Sopron was the only place allowed to have a plebiscite (this fact renders the censuses made after the treaty somewhat questionable, since the new countries forced its citizens to take loyalty oaths: for example the family of the writer Hamvas refused to take the Slovak nationality oath, and were for this reason expelled from Slovakia). Giordano Giordani 09:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The truth is that even Benes himself conceded that with a plebiscite, they would never have been able to create Czechoslovakia, especially in the present-day eastern Slovakia (which still has a sizeable Rusyn population), the people were more Magyar-oriented.


 * The fact that present-day countries that were part of the former Yugoslavia are today economic disasters have nothing to do with the Treaty of Trianon. It is simply a consequence of the Yugoslav wars during the 1990s. Before these wars Yugoslavia was economicaly developed country. For example, Vojvodina was economically most developed in 1974-1990 period (most developed in its history I mean). On the contrary, it was poorest when it was ruled by Austria-Hungary. PANONIAN   (talk)  12:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, other countries such as Romania, Ukraine, or Slovakia also do not have bad economy because of this treaty, but because of the former communist regimes that ruled over these countries. Tell me, why Austria do not have bad economy if this treaty affected it so much? PANONIAN   (talk)  12:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me why Hungary's economy is not "bad" even if it was a communist country itself?


 * I am sure that you will tell me. PANONIAN   (talk)  23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * For one, the Kádár regime was more liberal and less dogmatic than all of the other Communist countries of the world, I remember in the 80s, taking a trip to Romania or Czechoslovakia was like a trip back in time. I'm sure you have heard of the expression "Goulash Communism".

Giordano XY, the best answer to your edits and comments is that they are just a big mess and collection of nonsense. What Panonian says is very trivial and clear to everybody from Central Europe, but obviously someone has to tell you that explicitely. As for Czechoslovakia, if you need a number it was among the 10 most advanced countries in the whole world between the two world wars. And we could go on like this endlessly. So just do no try to invent associations where there are no associations. A treaty is not responsible for the history of the 20th century. Juro 15:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was a backward country but somehow, after the creation of Czechoslovakia, this situation changed suddenly and miraculously, giving rise to one of the superpowers of the world. Go figure!

Proposal
If a sub-chapter on the nationalities of post-Trianon Hungary is included, a similar sub-chapter should detail the history of the Hungarian minorities in the successor states. Árpád 08:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear fascist vandal, first of all you as a person that should have been banned 6 mpnths ago, should go to h...; secondly, obviously - like always - you have problems with basic rational thinking (things like bigger territory, smaller territory, uneven spread of production inputs etc. are too difficult for you, I know - because everything that does not concern Hungary or Hungarians is too difficult for you). So as an "answer", visit an elementary school again, such an institution will provide you with the necessary answers. Juro 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer is again very simple: the country named Czechoslovakia was created from two parts of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy which were indeed undergoing rapid industrialization during the Monarchy years but the cultural elite in the former Bohemia was German (Prague itself was a German speaking city for much of its history, and for a long time in history, Bohemia itself had belonged to the German empire, to the point that the Bohemian king was an elector of the emperor) and in the former Felvidék it was Hungarian (and to a lesser part, German). Incidentally, even elements of popular culture like Czech beer (Pilsner, Budweiser) were developed by Germans, not to mention Becherovka, which is originally Karlsbader Becherbitter. As for Slovak folk culture, one just needs to listen to typical Slovak folk music to appreciate that much of it has been derived from Hungarian folk music (like csárdás, verbunkos) except that this fact (again, just simple facts, no personal attacks or deletion of the comments of others) has been suppressed by the forced cultural assimilation policies that were going on in present-day Slovakia since 1920. Whatever insults you may write, I can corroborate each of my statements with hard core facts. Moreover, the destruction of the economic unity of the Central European space (or the Carpathian basin for that matter where - as Apponyi put it - the rivers were still flowing towards the Hungarian plain and not towards Prague, but the problem of the Tot rafters trying to sell their merchandise was not the only one that caused the economic and cultural decline of the former Felvidék - a perfect natural geographic and economic unity was dismembered). Finally, if Czechoslovakia was so perfect, how come the greatest Slovak national heros (like Hlinka who ended up on the fascist side) complained about the fictitious "Czechoslovak" nation and being treated as a colony by Prague or having suffered as much during several month of Czech occupation as during decades of Hungarian rule. See this link for instance, written by an independent author: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/bonsal/bonsal11.htm. Meanwhile, it is also important to point out the double standard applied at the peace conference: Bohemia was allowed to retain its historical borders despite including millions of Germans... (in fact it is also worth mentioning that the ratio of the German population was much higher than the Slovaks at that time, since the latter didn't even form an absolute majority in what was to become Slovakia). Árpád 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, like always with you: every single sentence you are saying is a lie - in other words it is so wrong that actually the exact opposite holds (current Hungarian "folk" is mostly derived from the lokal Slavic folk and not vice versa etc. etc.). Irrespective of this: Like always, you have written a typical irrational long fascist hypernational elaborate here that is completeley unrelated to the very technical topic at hand. But even if you wrote a poem, that does not change the fact that what you have been trying to deny above holds because these are pure numbers and logics. You can equally claim that the Earth is plane, that is the same. And like always: Any further such lies will be deleted by me, if this wikipedia and other Hungarian users are unable to cope with you, this is the only way how to prevent the spread of fascism and idiotism in this wikipedia. Juro 12:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What you maintain about Hungarian folk music is easy to rebut since the Hungarian cultural area (to transliterate "magyar kultúrkör" or "Ungarischer Kulturkreis") is much larger than the Slovak ethnic territory, it is quite unlikely that the Transylvanian folk music (see for example, the Muzsikás band) is of Slovak origin or that the original pentatonic Hungarian folk tunes (that can be related to ancient Asian - Chinese, Ujgur - melodies) or the motifs of folk art (see the tulip which is very common in ancient Persian and Mesopotamian culture) are of Slovak origin Árpád 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

While I can't find a single statement of Árpád that I would back up myself, I'm puzzled as to how he is either fascist, or a vandal. There exist established ways on Wikipedia to deal with irrational claims, or even trolling. Further reading at WP:NPA, WP:DFTT, and WP:CIVIL. Please. KissL 14:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See the comment on my talk page. And Arpad is only one of his 100 accounts (e,g, HunTomy), so you do not know the history, qnd I have removed all his explicit insults from the talk pages, therefore I cannot find them (I should have collected them). And I am happy that finally someone has noticed the problem he poses here. And as for being fascist - he turns any issue here into the "divine Hungarians" - "primitive Hungarian neigbours" issue and does not even try to hide that. Read the above discussion - what do folk songs have to do with the economy of A-H??? That is pure fascism. Juro 16:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC) P.S.: And most importantly, he is a permanent lier, the only way of reaction to his "contributions" is to say that every sentence is a lie. He also quite openly tries by seemingly "disussing" to place his long chauvinist views on the talk pages of the wikipedia in order to increase their hits in google and I will not allow that (when others do not see that, I see that).Juro 16:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * if he keeps up you can start an RFC or ask for partial protection of this page, but still please abide by WP:NPA, even with fascist vandals. Dsol 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FUNDAMENTALLY THE PROPOSAL OF ARPAD IS APPOSITE: IF THERE IS A SECTION ON TREATMENT OF MINORITIES IN HUNGARY IT IS ONLY FAIR THAT THERE IS ONE ON THE TREATMENT OF HUNGARIANS IN SLOVAKIA, ROMANIA, ETC.

This should be the main point of the discussion, not personal attacks (like calling someone "liar", or "fascist vandal", etc.). This way of arguing is extremely primitive. Alphysikist 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! I'm very hesitant to enter such a heated discussion as I do not want to get flamed, but as folk music (one of my favorite subjects!) has entered the discussion I feel I may have something to contribute. As near as I can figure out from Árpád's strange post at the beginning of this section, he seems to be practically denying the existence of the Slovak nation by pointing out that Slovak folk music sounds just like Hungarian folk music.....well, actually, Slovak folk music DOESN'T sound exactly like Hungarian folk music. There are definite close similarities--the pentatonic scale, frequent use of the fifth at the cadence, sometimes they use the old Magyar pattern of repeating a phrase a third or fourth higher, etc. But, despite the close similarities, there are differences as well, mainly rhythmic (due to the great difference between Magyar and Slavic languages!) and also melodic. (Read Kodály Zoltán's book Folk Music of Hungary--it's excellent!) But jeez, similarities in folk music doesn't mean the Slovaks don't exist as a nation, or whatever you were driving at. It just means that the Slovaks and Magyars have lived right next to each other for centuries. People move around, they meet strangers, swap tall tales, folklore, and especially exchange tunes! I would also here point out that not ALL Slovak music even sounds Hungarian. A lot of it is very much more "Slavic-sounding", more like the music of their other neighbors the Czechs, but it too is its own music. Please, as annoyed as you may be by the ongoing political mess between Hungary and Slovakia, please don't try to claim there really are no Slovaks, especially not on the basis of folk music... :) With hopes for friendship between peoples, K. Lastochka 05:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

To user PANONIAN:
I see you have already been involved in at least one 3RR. State which part of my contribution (16:30, September 4, 2006) you think is not factual or not encyclopedic or disputable before erasing again. I will be happy to discuss it here. Yours, with all my love, Bardwell 21:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not play games with me. If you came here to write about "cruel unjust treaty that was imposed on Hungary" you found wrong place for that, believe me. You have a dozen nationalistic forums on the whole Internet where you can expess your opinion. The purpose of Wikipedia is to be serious encyclopaedia, not place where people will express their nationalistic frustrations. PANONIAN   ;;;;;;;;(talk)  22:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the sole nationalist here, nobody else. You should be banned indefinitely for this: [] 195.56.249.131 23:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That map is simply illustration for my user page. It is based on prediction of a possible future demographic and political processes in these two countries. I do not offend anybody with this map neither I want to post it in any article. It is just an illustration for my own user page. PANONIAN   (talk)  23:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * However regarding your own edit here, your nationalistic goals here are evident: "the peace agreement imposed on Hungary" This is POV wording because representatives of Hungary signed that treaty, thus I do not see how somebody could impose on them to sign (it were their own hands that signed it). Also Hungary did not "ceded" lands to neighbouring countries. The text of the treaty only speak how borders of new independent Hungary are DEFINED, it does not speak that any land was "ceded". Finally, you will achieve nothing with your reverts, since tomorrow there will be more users that will revert your nationalistic reverts (I just spent my 3 reverts for today). If you continue with vandalism however, the article will be probably locked and you will be banned. Have a nice day. PANONIAN   (talk)  23:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear PANONIAN, I think you are mistaken. But to err is human and I forgive you. If you would care to check facts, undisputable facts, you would see that Hungary was not only uninvited to the conferences where the Treaty was decided but she wasn't even allowed to present her case. This DOES mean that the Treaty WAS imposed on her. The fact that she signed it is irrelevant - in the circumstances of the time she had no other option. Not signing the treaty was not a realistic option. I see you are quick to apply 3RR and to make threats. This is quite uncalled for and it demonstrates an aptitude for the kind of tragic ethnic hate witnessed so recently between Serbs and their neighbour states. This here is a forum where you can use reasoned arguments to make your case. Have you ever read the Treaty? I have. Have you ever researched the circumstances and the actual conduct of the conferences? I have. Have you provided sources? I have. You can check them. In particular, I would refer you to Professor Macartney's work October Fifteenth. Read chapter one, pages 3 -24. Macartney was a well-respected expert on the subject; a research fellow at All Souls College, Oxford. He was English (probably Scottish if you wish me to be pedantic). You can hardly accuse him of being 'nationalistic' in the context we are discussing. With best wishes to you and good reading, your fellow wikipedian: Bardwell 00:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that representatives of Hungary were not invited to the conference and I do not object that it is mentioned in the article, but not in the preface part. It belong here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon#Frontiers_of_Hungary Or the separate section named "Peace conference" should be written. What I object is your POV usage of words "ceded lands", "imposed treaty", "unrightfull treaty", etc. That are nothing but points of view, because most of the inhabitants of Central Europe consider this treaty very rightfull. If you read the treaty then you would know that treaty do not use your POV words, it only precisely DEFINE borders. Read it again to remind yourself: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri1.htm And finally, please stop using sockpuppets, because this one is obviously your: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Treaty_of_Trianon&diff=73845204&oldid=73845023 PANONIAN   (talk)  01:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, I can writte entire new article with the statements of people who claim how rightfull was this treaty. The purpose of Wikipedia IS NOT to decide whether something was rightfull or not but to describe events in NPOV manner. PANONIAN   (talk)  01:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Also please read the text of the treaty and quote part that claim that lands were "ceded" (I do not see such part): http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri1.htm PANONIAN   (talk)  01:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

My dear PANONIAN, If your other contributions to Wikipedia are as accurate and well-informed as this one:


 * "And finally, please stop using sockpuppets, because this one is obviously your"  [sic]

then, I’m afraid they are all equally worthless. I have no idea whatsoever who user 195.56.249.131 is. It certainly isn’t me. You have my permission to ask the powers that be at wikipedia to confirm or deny whether my ISP has any connection with 195.56.249.131. Take the challenge! If you or wikipedia can show a link, I’ll pay you £100,000. I am not even asking you to pay me a penny if you lose the challenge. It would be immoral of me to take your money on a challenge I know for sure you can only lose. Your allegation is completely and totally baseless. Why do you do it? Bardwell 04:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore: For precise reference to terminology of "imposed on Hungary" see: The Oxford Dictionary of 20th Century History 1914-1990. Oxford University Press (1992) ISBN 0192116762, page 470, which reads:
 * Trianon, Treaty of (4 June 1920), peace treaty imposed on Hungary after World War I. [quoted here word for word!]

For a precise definition of the meaning of the word cede, I am quoting from The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1933) 3rd Rev. ed. (1965) [No ISBN]
 * cede
 * (1) To give way, yield
 * (2) To give up, grant; to yield, surrender

Bardwell 09:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You registered your nick very recently (on 18 August). There is very good chance that you are sockpuppet of HunTomy and Arpad and all your edits made between 18 August and 4 September were probably made with a purpose to hide your true identity (However, you made an mistake and used your other sockpuppet - Giordano Giordani, which clearly show who you are and why you are here). Expect that I as soon as tomorrow will write new section in this article describing events preceding the treaty explaining the reasons why Hungarian delegation was not allowed to participate in peace conference, including mention of war crimes that Austro-Hungarian army commited against civilian population of Serbia. PANONIAN   (talk)  13:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record! If a definition is good enough for inclusion in an internationally and academically respected publication issued by one of the world’s most respected university printing presses then I dare say it is sufficiently clean and authoritative for inclusion in a wikipedia article. I have reinserted the following reference, and will keep on doing so because I do not believe in appeasing bullies. Bardwell 16:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The Oxford Dictionary of 20th Century History 1914-1990. Oxford University Press (1992) ISBN 0192116762 (The entry for ‘Trianon’ gives a definition of the Treaty.)

And what happens when some "internationally and academically respected publications issued by one of the world’s most respected university printing presses" happen to contradict each other? KissL 18:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Then it is proper to include at least both viewpoints. The Mitterrand quote lends further support to the viewpoint advocated by myself and user Bardwell. It may also be that these views are underrepresented, since it was the winning powers who imposed the Trianon dictats on the people of the Carpathian basin, and they (that is to say their media, press, etc.) are less likely to question the rational of the "treaty" for a variety of reasons. Considering these circumstances, the fact that our viewpoints are supported it is all the more reason to include them in the article.Giordano Giordani 23:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The treaty was imposed upon Hungary that's a fact. Even by common sense: does anybody think that Hungary would accepted the loss of two-thirds of its territory without utmost constraint? Would any country in the the world ever made such an "agreement"? The Treaty of Trianon was a dictate, and Hungary hadn't got any other choice. There was no army, the economy was ruined, big parts of the country were still under occuptation. If Hungary wouldn't signed the treaty other regions would be annexed by Romania and Serbia. Agreements are made by two willing parties. The Treaty of Trianon wasn't an agreement but a total surrender of a collapsed country. Zello 01:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, "agreement" was a bit of an euphemism. However, for the definition of the lead, I still prefer not to have any words that can be considered emotive. Any interested reader will have enough understanding to know anyway that peace treaties usually contain the winners' will. KissL 09:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Kiss1, - It is a fuzzy editorial assumption that the reader of an encyclopedic article will have any prior knowledge or understanding of the subject of an article for them to realise that peace treaties " usually contain the winners' will ". In any case, why do you think it is wrong to state it? And on another note altogether - what kind of a justification is there to repeatedly remove source references, as you have done with the ref. to OUP Dict. of 20C History, when it is a clear wiki policy to encourage, nay, to specifically request, the provision of references. Bardwell 09:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I think other points-of-view shold be explained in text, not in the lead. Zello 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Even the very best dictionary is sort of irrelevant as a reference about a peace treaty. KissL 10:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Kiss1 – You appear to be justifying repeated deletes of a definition from a specialist historical dictionary as “sort of irrelevant as a reference to a peace treaty.” Isn’t your justification a little fuzzy? Isn’t your justification a personal point of view in itself and as such clearly not a sufficient reason to delete another editor's reference? However, sat asside, would you be happier with a more authorative source? How about the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Would you accept that as a reasonable source? Here are a couple of relevant citations from the Fifteenth Edition, Rev. (2002) [ISBN 0-85229-787-4]:


 * “… The Allies’ presentation of their terms for peace with Hungary was delayed because of … on Jan. 16, 1920at Neuilly a Hungarian delegation received the draft treaty.”


 * “By the terms of the treaty, Hungary was shorn of at least two-thirds of its former territory and two-thirds of its inhabitants.”

There is, of course, more, much more and in much more severe languages, but all I am trying to demonstrate is that Bardwell 14:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (a) the OUP Dictionary of 20thC History is not an isolated source of reference.
 * (b) my use of the phrase “treaty imposed” is not a biased presentation of reality (based on the above) even if one omits to spell out that the final text of the Treaty that was handed to the Hungarian Government on 5 May 1920, differed from the January draft only in two minor alterations in the question of optants and with regard to the Danube catchment area and that no further alterations were made to the final draft.
 * (c) the use of the word ‘ceded’ in the context, is, if anything, a much tamer and milder expression than ‘ shorn of ’.


 * Bardwe11 – There are many sources in comparison to which the proposed formulation is better; some of these sources are respectable. In what way does this constitute a proof that the proposed formulation is better than the current one? See also: Ignoratio elenchi. KissL 15:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear Panonian! If u find "unrightfull treaty" not true...than look at the map. Clearly there were parts given to Romania, Slovakia, Serbia and Austria that were inhabited mostly by Hungarians (I am not saying all!!!! Csabap 14:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The question is whether Treaty in general was rightful or not (whether parts of the treaty regarding exact positions of the borders were rightful or not is completelly different question). Just see these numbers: before the Treaty, 10 million non-Hungarians lived in the Kingdom of Hungary, and after the Treaty, 3,5 million Hungarians lived outside Hungary. 10 million is quite larger number than 3,5 million, not to mention that countries like Croatia and Slovakia would not even exist today if the Treaty of Trianon did not happened. These two facts speak for themselves. PANONIAN   (talk)  01:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Unrightful" depends on the reader's definition of what is right, and therefore, once you insert this word into any article, you've violated WP:NPOV, and most importantly, the rule of thumb "Let the facts speak for themselves". KissL 10:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - - - Panonian, your sentence “(LOL Bardwell, you even do not trying to hide the fact that you are same person with Milanmm)” is not English! It isn’t even bad English, it is nonsense. You obviously cannot write in English. I am now wondering if you can read English? If you can, please read my reasons for the changes to the lead paragraph. You can find them below. With lots of love, Bardwell 18:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Too bore comment. Just leave me alone. Thank you. PANONIAN   (talk)  20:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You are riding on the issue out of context. The fact is that without the entente, Horthy would have never got in power, the few hundred Hungarian drunkard gentry around him would have been easily beaten by sticks by a few strong steelworkers. Signing the treaty was an exchange for this. From 1919, he hoped that for his stringent anti-communism he would have got territorial compensation from the entente (Horthy's memoirs). The fact remains that until Horthy, Hungary resisted the treaty diplomatically (Károlyi's govenment, and to some extent the Council Republic) and militarily (the Council Republic), thus it was forced upon Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lacz (talk • contribs) 13:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mitterrand
Actually, the Mitterrand quote is an interesting one, but it doesn't say a word about this treaty specifically, so it's better to keep it out of here, at least until there is a very comprehensive and very NPOV description of why and how Hungarians consider the treaty unjust (which is unlikely to happen too soon with all the disruptive nationalist behavior around the article, meaning all "sides" not just one). In such a situation, even if it could be fair to mention some details in the lead, a short NPOV version is better than anything.

As for "ceded", the connotations for this word are clearly not as neutral and non-emotive as the formulation originally in the article. Let's not start comparing the world's web-based dictionaries for a point as simple as that. What's wrong with the current version?

KissL 14:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Editorial considerations for a complete rewrite of this article
The Treaty of Trianon dealt specifically with issues relating to Hungary. This is evidenced by the very title of the treaty: " Treaty of Peace Between The Allied and Associated Powers and Hungary ” ( see: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri1.htm).

From an editorial point of view this wiki article on the Treaty of Trianon should, I think, deal only with the treaty and not with claims, arguments, explanations, etc., relating to extraneous ethnic and territorial issues, which it would be more appropriate to list under other headings in the wiki system, especially as they tend to be divisive.

The Treaty of Trianon is in itself clearly defined under XIV parts, as follows:


 * PART I. THE COVENANT OF THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS
 * PART II. FRONTIERS OF HUNGARY
 * PART III. POLITICAL CLAUSES FOR EUROPE
 * PART IV. HUNGARIAN INTERESTS OUTSIDE EUROPE.
 * PART V. MILITARY, NAVAL AND AIR CLAUSES.
 * PART VI PRISONERS OF WAR AND GRAVES.
 * PART VII. PENALTIES.
 * PART VIII. REPARATION
 * PART IX. FINANCIAL CLAUSES.
 * PART X. ECONOMIC CLAUSES.
 * PART XI. AERIAL NAVIGATION.
 * PART XII. PORTS, WATERWAYS AND RAILWAYS
 * PART XIII. LABOUR
 * PART XIV. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

From a logical editorial perspective, these are the only sections that should populate the article. The article should be void of all personal interpretations and opinions. One should bear in mind that the article is an encyclopaedic entry. It is not supposed to be a vehicle for opinions. One cannot be more accurate or more neutral than by quoting the original document without extraneous embroidery. With this in mind it is my intention to reformat the Treaty of Trianon article in conformity with the above because I firmly believe that this would conform totally and indisputably with wikipedia objectives to provide accurate and unbiased information.

I hereby invite anyone interested in this subject to state their views with regards to whether they consider this approach to be sufficient and fair to resolve differences of opinion about what the Treaty of Trianon was. Bardwell 10:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This wouldn't be very informative to the reader. The historical impact of the treaty is far more important than the specifics of "aerial navigation". The implications of the treaty on the history and politics of the region throughout the 20th centuty are immense and the text should reflect that. I suggest you take a look around: Category:Peace treaties. -- nyenyec &#9742; 19:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We don't simply publish sources but write an encyclopaedia, even it is difficult sometimes. That's not the right way to reach neutrality. Zello 19:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

nyenyec and zello: Thanks for your comments. I think your points are valid. The problem I see with the current version has primarily to do with the inadequacy of the leadeer and with the determination of some parties to stick to wishy-washy weasel definition in order to obscure the fact that this agreement was a clear case of victors imposing their terms on the vanquished. Not for nothing is there a fair warning above the leading article cautioning readers about this. If you have been following the various reverts and erasures and the arguments over the past few days then no doubt you would be aware that some parties here object to and erase words such as ‘imposed’ and ‘ceded’ in favour of alternatives that do not convey to the casual reader the true and generally accepted and acknowledged fact that the treaty was imposed on Hungary. I find this quite incomprehensible as this terminology is in no way derogatory to any of the successor states. Some users have even gone as far as to repeatedly eradicate reference to a book from a highly-respected academic institution just because it has the ‘temerity’ to define the treaty as “imposed on Hungary”. Precisely in order to sidestep this zealous opposition by some parties to calling a spade a spade, have I come up with the suggestion that by confining the article to undeniable facts, i.e. to the actual provisions of the treaty itself, it should be possible to get rid of weasel words and of ambiguity and to have that warning banner removed from the top and to bring an end to the bickering.

Looking at the Treaty of Versailles article, which is the natural twin for the Treaty of Trianon, one can see the phrase “ Terms imposed on Germany …” etc. and I fail to see why this terminology should be objected to so vehemently in the Trianon article. I would be interested to hear users’ views on whether the Treaty of Versailles article could be or should be used as a model for Trianon. Bardwell 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)




 * Evidently the Treaty of Trianon is a contentious article, although it is silly that this should be so. Wikipedia’s encyclopaedic part is about factual information, not interpretations of events. With this in mind, I have redrafted the lead paragraph, being very careful all along to stick to documented facts and terminologies. If I have got any of these facts wrong, please give chapter and verse and I will reconsider and rectify as appropriate.


 * Please note: In the opening para. I have defined “ Allied and Associated Powers” exactly as defined in the treaty’s header. Please note carefully that the treaty is with HUNGARY, not Austro-Hungary or its representative (if in doubt, see the Treaty)


 * I would have liked to include the sentence: “The most contentious Parts of the Trianon Treaty were Hungary’s new borders because they reduced post-Trianon Hungary to 30 per cent of its former size.” This might perhaps enlighten an enquiring mind, reading this wiki-article in search of knowledge and information, as to what all the fuss is about with this treaty. In fact, I would challenge anyone to name, if they can, a more contentious Part of the Treaty. In the end, I left out the sentence because, obvious as this is to me, God alone knows the mindsets of the various still warring nationalities here, all anxious to put their own shine on history, as if it made the slightest difference now, with the Treaty being very long past its sell-by date.


 * With regard to reference to separate peace treaty with USA, my reasoning is that in the context, especially with regard to explicit exclusion of Part II of the Trianon Treaty, the reference is relevant.
 * Bardwell 17:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Concure with the need for a re-write. The subject invokes too much emotion rather than the acceptance of the fact. Most of mainland Europe's national boundaries have been changed by a significant degree and is now accepted as part of history - as this subject should now be treated. User:Branston Pickle


 * Branston Pickle? When you registered nickname? Today? Another sockpuppet of Bardwell I presume? So, mister Bardwell-Branston Pickle-Milanmm-Giordano Giordani (or to say Hun Tomy instead?), do you suggest that we simply copy-paste the text of the treaty from here and to remove everything else from the article including mention how many Hungarians were left outside Hungary after this treaty? PANONIAN   (talk)  20:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My Dear Panonian, I can confirm that I am not related in any other way to the above mentioned, nor have any allegiance or contact whatsoever. I am merely looking at a practical aspect for a basic model that the average person can absorb emphasising on the facts of the matter. This is a complicated subject and as you can see emotive issues can fog the overall issue. Personally speaking, being a citizen of the European Union (Hungary/Western Pannonia), I would prefer if our boundaries were left as present i.e. peaceful co-existences rather than use such subjects to whip up a frenzy and incitement to hatred, as as happened so may times in our bloodthirsty history.  Perhaps I am wrong and you have a more practical experience taking into account the region you are located in.User:Branston Pickle

I believe Bardwell's opinions (and the like) are stand-outs here with regards to intelligent and rational thought, and they display a notable lack of extremist opinion, which this talkpage is sadly littered with. Therefore it is no surprise to me that this view and proposal is being attacked. I concur with Bardwell.Hunor-Koppany

Poland
See this map: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/169.gif According to the map, a small part of KOH was also included into Poland. I think this should be noted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon#Frontiers_of_Hungary However, I do not know when exactly this area was included into Poland. Does somebody have more information about this? PANONIAN  (talk)  21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The small territory is still in Poland. The northern parts of Árva (Orava) and Szepes (Spis) counties with polish majority population was annexed by Poland, as I know, by the decision of an arbitration comitee in 1920. You can find a detailed map under: http://terkeptar.transindex.ro/legbelso.php3?nev=165 After the Munich conference in 1938 Poland annexed more Polish inhabited territories along the Slovak-Polish border. After the German attack against Poland in 1939, Slovakia regained those territories. --Kelenbp 17:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus
Hi everybody.

I am really tired from fights here. Each my contribution is simply ignored. People are all the time reverting to their version without a discussion. I was even accused to be somebode else, what is ridiculus.

I propose to build the article from the beginning. Everybody can say his opinion about each part and we will try to find a version that everybody will agree with. I do not want to find a version that majority agrees with, but everybody agrees with. Let's base everything on facts. In this way any "puppet" would be useless.

Mentioning your nationality would help to see somebody else's point. I am Slovak.

OK, I would start with the beginning. 1) "The Treaty of Trianon was a peace treaty that regulated the situation of the new Hungarian state" - this is only partially true as the treaty regulated the situation of all succesor countries (see for example: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri3.htm "Each of the States to which territory of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy is transferred, and each of the States arising from the dismemberment of that Monarchy, including Hungary, shall assume responsibility for a portion of the unsecured bonded debt of the former Hungarian Government as it stood on July 28, 1914, calculated on the basis of the ratio between the average for the three financial years....."

2) "new Hungarian state that replaced the Kingdom of Hungary" - not only thenew Hungarian state that replaced the Kingdom of Hungary

3) "winning powers, their allied countries, and the losing side" - the losing country was Austria-Hungary, not Hungary - so this is not correct, Austro-Hungarian monarchy was not represented by Hungary

Milanmm 15:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How about a version like this? I've tried to fix the problems you pointed out:
 * The Treaty of Trianon was a peace treaty that regulated the situation of the states that replaced the former Kingdom of Hungary, part of pre-war Austria-Hungary, after World War I. It was signed on June 4, 1920, at the Grand Trianon Palace at Versailles, France.
 * The winning parties to the Treaty were the Allied Powers, including the United States, Britain, France and Italy; and their allied countries ("Associated Powers"), Romania, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and Czechoslovakia. The losing party was Hungary alone, since Austria-Hungary had by this time disintegrated.

Something like that. I know it's far from perfect, this is why I'm not putting it into the article directly – feel free to improve or criticise it. KissL (don't forget to vote!) 20:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - - -

I cannot understand the attraction of wanting to bowdlerize the wording of the Treaty, especially as all such attempts are likely to lead into a quagmire. The surest way to obtain consensus is to stick with simple and undisputable words, where possible taken from the Treaty itself.

The Treaty of Trianon was a peace treaty between Hungary and the Allied and Associated Powers of WW1. This is clearly stated, in bold letters, at the top of the Treaty! It has nothing to do with the former Austro-Hungarian Empire. Why labour on inventing a new name for it? This traety is between Hungary and the Allied and Associated Poers! How many Treaties of Trianon are there? The Treaty does NOT “regulate the situations of the states that replaced the former Kingdom of Hungary”, It does not regulate the size of any of the Allied and Associated Powers’ armies, or armaments, or the ratio of officers to men in the army, or restrict their manufacture of tanks and aeroplanes, or the building of high-power wireless telegraphy stations, and half a million other things. It simply spells out, specifically with regard to Hungary what she may or may not do. It regulates only Hungary! This is not unusual, after all, this is a peace treaty. And like in all peace treaties that are signed between victors and vanquished, it contains the terms on which the winners are willing to bring an end to a state of war. So why not just stick to the simple fact and state the simple truth in a simple, unoffending language - The Peace Treaty set out the terms on which the victorious powers were willing to bring an end the state of war with Hungary. Full stop! No need for inventive language or euphemisms. Is this such a terrible thing? Please, tell me by all means, what's objectionable about this? Where is the problem? Bardwell 22:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The "problem" has already been pointed out before: ALL successor states (i.e. not only Hungary) assumed financial (and partly also other) obligations determined by the Treaty. I really like KissL's version of the lead because it is precise and neutral. I think it should be put into the article. Tankred 00:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - - -

I cannot see how one can be more neutral than by stating that The Treaty of Trianon was a peace treaty between Hungary and the Allied and Associated Powers of WW1 To portray this as “The Treaty of Trianon was a peace treaty that regulated the situation of the states that replaced the former Kingdom of Hungary, part of pre-war Austria-Hungary, after World War I.”  is an interpretaion of the traety’s title. Like all interpretaions, it represents a POV. Whether it is a right or wrong POV, neutral or biased, is irrelevan to the argument when the wording is disputed and when the precise definition is available and can be cited, as is the case in this instance. From this it follows, I think, and please correct me if I am wrong, that I, or anyone else so inclined, would have full justification to remove it, as an unsourced and uncited interpretation, and replace it with a cited version which is NOT an interpretation but the real McCoy. (Do we really want a never-ending reverts war over this?)  As for the treaty ― this traety, the treaty with Hungary, that is ― "was a peace treaty that regulated the situation of the states that replaced the former Kingdom of Hungary", can anyone provide any  relevant citations for this from within the text of the Treaty? I think this wording, well-intentioned though as it may be, is but an inept disguise of what the treaty was - peace terms offered by the victors to the vanquished. There is nothing to be ashamed about this. This was, and probably still is, the way of the world. All the actors in this drama had made their stage exits a long time ago and are now dead and burried. Let the ink on the document speak for itself. Bardwell 16:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What bout this version? "The Treaty of Trianon is a peace treaty between Hungary and the Allied and Associated Powers signed on June 4, 1920, at the Grand Trianon Palace at Versailles, France. The winning parties of the Treaty included the 'Allied Powers' (United States, Britain, France, Italy, and Japan) and the smaller 'Associated Powers' (especially Romania, the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and Czechoslovakia) of World War I. The losing party was Hungary alone, since Austria-Hungary had by this time disintegrated. The Treaty regulated the situation of the states that replaced the former Kingdom of Hungary, part of pre-war Austria-Hungary, after World War I." The first sentence characterizes the Treaty in the same way as it is described in its own Preamble. As to the last sentence, it can be illustrated by the articles about obligations of the successor states other than Hungary (namely Article 44, 47, 51, 52, 61). I hope the new proposal adequately addresses all issues that you have raised. Tankred 23:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - - -

I think this is a step in the right direction and is neatly composed. I would however question the need for singling out and naming, as you have done, the three countries from the Associated Powers. There were outher countries that were given land from Hungary, namely Austria and Italy, and even more countries towards whom Hungary was left with financial or other obligations. So what exactly is the point of naming three countries with an ‘especially’ tag? It only muddies the waters, I think. Don't you agree? If not - why do you think this is necessary?

You might find it interesting to visit No original research. The following are the key operative policy statements:
 * Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.
 * Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources which provide information that is directly related to the topic of the article and to adhere to what those sources say. (My emphasis) Bardwell 00:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not get your point about original research. The lead just summarizes the article about the Treaty of Trianon and does not include any original research. Please, let us focus on how to improve this article. If you please, we can replace the word "especially" by "such as". Why those three countries? Because they were successor states along with Hungary. Austria received some territory, but it was not an Associated Power. Italy is already mentioned among the Allied Powers. Do you agree with the current version of the proposal (with "such as" instead of "especially")? Tankred 00:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

- - - - -

Tankred, Hungary was NOT a successor state. To argue otherwise would, I think, invite justifiable charges that the article was interpretive and manipulative. [For ref. to who the successor states were see Macartney: Hungary - a Short History, (1962), page 107, etc.] Irrespective of the above, I don’t think it would be right to pick three of the Associated Powers and drop them into the lead section unless it enhanced the meaning of the lead section, for example: “The principal beneficiaries of territorial adjustment were Romania, The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Yugoslavia), and Czechoslovakia”. The reason for the presence of the names of the principal beneficiaries in the lead section, without a brief explanation, would, I think, be unclear to the reader and therefore, from an editorial perspective, wrong. Bardwell 10:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the lead of an article about a peace treaty should mention the signatory states. But it would not be reader-friendly to list all the Associated Powers (including Siam and Panama). The three Associated Powers mentioned in the lead are the most relevant. I do not think that a brief explanation why they are more relevant than Siam and Panama is necessary in this part of the article - everything is explained in detail in the main text. Well, I hope other editors will express their opinions too and we will reach consensus about the lead. Tankred 15:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The book can be found here: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/macartney/ Bardwell, where is the part correcponding to p. 107? Milanmm 18:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look here: Allies of World War I, Romania and Serb-Croat-Slovene State are not listed, but Czechoslovakia. Who can explain it? Milanmm 18:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My version:


 * The Treaty of Trianon is a Treaty of Peace Between The Allied and Associated Powers and Hungary signed on June 4, 1920, at the Grand Trianon Palace at Versailles, France. The Treaty regulated the situation of the Hungary and its relation to other states (Serb-Croat-Slovene State, Romania, Czechoslovakia) that replaced the former Kingdom of Hungary, part of pre-war Austria-Hungary, after losing the World War I.

Milanmm 18:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

what a mess!
hi guys, I've just been looking through old bits of the archive here, and WHAT A MESS. For heaven's sake, you all sound like a bunch of schoolchildren fighting on the playground. How about a new rule for discussion here? How about: no one will call any of their fellow editors a fascist, revisionist, chauvinist, troll, vandal or other nasty names that have been thrown around here, and quit accusing people you don't agree with of being sockpuppets of vandals. Are you here to write an article, or to compete for the title of Most Obnoxious Wikipedian, Most Paranoid, Most Childish etc.? Look, Trianon was a messy affair, there are legitimate complaints (and legitimate good things) on all sides. As soon as everyone here stops flinging ethnic/nationalist insults back and forth, some progress might be made. Try putting conspiracy theories behind you and be intelligent Wikipedians please!! K. Lastochka 03:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Census citation
I hesitate to stir this pot, but there seem to be no citations for the census data here. I have no reason to think any of it is inaccurate, just that the article fails to cite for it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

True enough. Another strange thing is that the pre-war census data (which would show a more mixed population) are  for areas outside Hungary, while post-war census data (which would show a less mixed population, due to population transfers) is given only for Hungary. Smells like a weasel to me. Causantin 13:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably if you read the article you would know that the borders changed between the two dates... Zello 22:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

My stuff
On reading this article I was struck by the fact that most of the contributors seemed to be writing from a Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian viewpoint. I have therefore added some stuff trying to explain why the Allies took the decisions they did. Please amend as you will! Jameswilson 00:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

For K.Lastocka
If there are "plenty of non-Hungarians who also hold that opinion" then please writte who they are because I know only Hungarians who hold that opinion (the real misleading thing here is to say that "some people" have that opinion, but not to say who those people are) and please do not delete sentence that "non-Hungarians also consider Carpathian Basin their home" - I am not Hungarian and I consider it my home, so with what exactly you have problem here? PANONIAN 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Panonian, originally a non-Hungarian wrote this paragraph and he/she did not say this was an exclusively Hungarian claim. Then you include a POV and request others to prove you are not right.
 * And the text did not claim that non-Hungarians (like Panonian) don't consider the Carpathian Basin their home. It is obvious fact for any kid from the kindergarten on the next corner, this is why that sentence is not needed, it is simply redundant --KIDB 21:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant who wrotte this article (the non-Hungarian who wrote it obviously read some sources that used some Hungarian literature). I repeat, it is POV if you say that "some people" have that opinion and not to say what people exactly (we have no reason to hide this information from the readers - if some non-Hungarians have that opinion too, then say their names and we would not have problem with the sentence, no matter that it is too unbelieveable for me that anybody could support imperialist claims and aims of somebody to enslave other peoples. As for your claim that "text did not claim that non-Hungarians (like Panonian) don't consider the Carpathian Basin their home", the text also DOES NOT MENTION THIS FACT, while it mention it in the case of Hungarians - everybody who want NPOV article would see that this is double standard. If you mention that Hungarians consider Carpathian Basin their home, you also HAVE TO mention that I consider it my home too if you want NPOV article. But, if you do not want NPOV article, that would be another problem (and if sentence that I consider it my home is reduntant, why sentence that Hungarians consider it their home is not redundant - please answer this). PANONIAN  04:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Thanks, KIDB. Panonian, just so you know, I had no political reasons for deleting the sentence "non-Hungarians also consider Carpathian Basin their home", I simply thought it was a case of belaboring the obvious. Plenty of respectable, serious historians from plenty of countries agree that Trianon was motivated just as much by cynical, petty politicking, attempts to make sure Germany and the rest of the East stayed weak as by wonderful democratic ideals of liberating the Slovaks, Romanians etc. When I am awake (I'm totally zonked right now) and if I have the time to spare, I will look through the books I have and provide you with quotes and names. K. Lásztocska 04:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Panonian, Wikipedia readers are not stupid. I don't see why we have to clutter up everything with disclaimers, parenthetical explanations, and politically correct ramblings. If someone reading this article is dumb enough to think that the non-Hungarian inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin did not consider the Carpathian Basin their home, that's his problem, not ours. K. Lásztocska 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide this explanation and you will not see objection from me. I would also accept sentence like this one "by opinion of Hungarians and some non-Hungarian historians" (with proper quotations or description who they are). Regarding claim that "Wikipedia readers are not stupid", if they are not then why you just have to inform them that "Hungarians consider entire Carpathian Basin their home?" (I really do not understand this one). Either delete both claims, either none, it is simple as that. PANONIAN  04:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing is though, in that paragraph and in that context, the Hungarians at that time seeing the entire Carpathian Basin as home is the unexpected/surprising/strange thing that might not be immediately obvious to readers unfamiliar with Hungarian history. Belaboring the obvious is one thing, but mentioning something that might not be immediately obvious is something else again. K. Lásztocska 16:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But how can somebody who is "unfamiliar with Hungarian history" (your words) or unfamiliar with history of Central Europe in general, to assume or expect anything from this text and to think that something is obvious? If he do not know anything about Central European history then he simply cannot assume anything about it. He neither can assume what was Hungarian neither non-Hungarian opinion about the subject and therefore our job is to present both opinions to such readers. PANONIAN  16:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, here's my point. For the sake of making a clear argument, let's just take the case of the Slovaks. The Slovaks live in the Carpathian basin, and that is fairly obvious. (If someone does not know where exactly Slovakia is or where the Carpathian Basin is, I would hope he would click on the little blue link and find out.) Since the Slovaks LIVE in the Carpathian basin, it is quite safe to assume that they consider their part of the Carpathian Basin their home, indeed it's quite obvious. Now, consider the case of Hungary. As you well know, modern Hungary is very small, and only takes up part of the Carpathian Basin. Since the modern borders of Hungary are almost certainly going to be the most familiar to the average modern reader, that reader will probably assume the obvious, that the Hungarians would only consider their small part of the Carpathian Basin to be their home. But wait--that's not how it was, back then they considered the entire Carpathian Basin to be their home. Weird, eh? Unexpected. Not immediately obvious from a modern standpoint.
 * Also, if you still don't like that explanation, just consider the rhetorical structure of that paragraph: "The victorious Allies arrived in France with a black-and-white view of the situation in central Europe which made the outcome inevitable. At the heart of the dispute lay fundamentally different views of the nature of the Hungarian presence in the disputed territories. For the Hungarians the whole of the Carpathian Basin was seen as 'home'. The western powers and the American press in particular saw the Hungarians as colonial-style rulers who had oppressed the Slavs and Romanians since 1867." You see, this paragraph is meant to contrast the view of the Hungarians with the view of the Allied Powers, not with the Slovaks and Romanians. Contrasting viewpoints works best when you only present them two at a time: dragging in sentences about the non-Hungarians also thinking the Carpathian Basin was their home turns that clear, concise paragraph about the Hungarians and the Allies into a big confusing mushy mess. Add it somewhere else if you must belabor the obvious, just please don't mess up one of the few well-written paragraphs in this disaster area of an article. K. Lásztocska 16:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, let not talk about Slovaks but about Serbs and Romanians instead. The view of the Hungarian historiography is that Serbs and Romanians came to their present Pannonian-Carpathian lands in the 14th-16th century and that they "stole" these lands from Hungarians who lived there from 10th-16th century. However, the view of Serbs and Romanians is that their presence in these lands is connected to the presence of old Slavs and old Dacians and Romans and they see these lands as ancient lands of their ancestors that were subjugated by the Hungarians in the 10th century. In another words, we have two opposite views about whole thing: Serbs and Romanians see themselves as a native peoples of these lands and they also see Hungarians as aliens, while Hungarians see themselves as a native people of these lands and they also see Serbs and Romanians as aliens. It is obvious that there are two opposite opinions about the subject and that ordinary Wiki readers simply cannot assume any of the two opinions as obvious. In another words, if you say that Hungarians see this area as home, but if you do not say that non-Hungarians also see it as home, then you imply that Hungarian opinion that non-Hungarians are in fact aliens is correct. For example, would you like that we writte a sentence that will say that non-Hungarians see this area as their home and that they see Hungarians as aliens, but that we do not writte Hungarian opinion about the subject? I do not think that you would like it, but the sentence that you proposing sound exactly the same. PANONIAN  18:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever. This discussion is getting pointless. Do whatever you want to the article. K. Lásztocska 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words?
I'm getting really tired of seeing that "weasel words" template up top here. Can somebody please point out the instances of weasel words? I will try and fix them and maybe we can get rid of that ugly tag. K. Lásztocska 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that...
I've undone my yesterday's redirect of "trianon"--it now redirects to the disambig page, how it was before. Sorry for any confusion it caused, I guess I should discuss redirects before going all Rouge on you guys. :-) K. Lásztocska 22:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thought-provoking ...
When you talk about Trianon, you cannot be objective, you should on one side. Even if you are British or American. I am sorry if I write something duplicated, I didn't check the complete archive on this ...

First point: "treaty" is when two sides are agreed on something. This was not this case, the Entente has decided one-sided, so it is simply not a treaty, but a dictatum, so this is a misleading political bias, even today! It is pity, that Hungary was "punished" so much, even if we didn't start the war (WWI) and we had no interest in this war.

Second point: if this is a dictate, then the Entente should have followed the Wilsonian points (discussed before) and should have asked all (!!) regions/areas (not just disputed ones) for plebiscite. If it would have happened, strange thing would have happened to Ciuk county, Cluj-Napoca, Tirgu Mures, West-Transylvania, Kosice, Nitra, Burgenland, North Vojvodina, as at 1920, it was majority of Hungarians (nowadays not true).

Third point: Why the borders are there (why not 20 km away?). It is obvious, it had nothing to do with ethnicity, only politics: the Entente (mostly France) had to dismantle her competition (enemy) the Austrian Empire, so the best case is "divide et impera". But we need to also take care that the Austro-Hungarians will never threaten again. So, they surrounded Austria and Hungary with Entente-linked states, BUT taking care that the defendable mountains AND the startegic RAILWAYs stay out of the hostile area. You can see, why Ruthenian-minority SubCarpathia was given to Czechoslovakia (the Eastern part, later given to Soviet Union), it had very few links with the ethnicity. You would also ask why Oradea or Arad had fallen to Romania, it is clear: railway. Regarding the part "Muraköz" now part of Slovenia, you can still see it on the map, that the region is not an organic part of Slovenia, like a "hump", this was given to Slovenian-Serbo-Croatian Kingdom, because it was rich in oil. The most striking cut off is Burgenland (Őrség) which was given to Austria, which was never part of Austria, which was given to a nation which also lost the war, pls explain to me, why? (Most popular theory is that Hungary was turned to Soviet-Hungary and Entente punished more). Just one small story, which I cannot confirm. During the discussion on the treaty between French and Serbo-Croats on the borders of South, the borders were drawn, and everybody went to sleep, waiting for the Hungarian envoye's who would arrive the next day. During the night, one sergeant sneaked inside the ballroom, and re-drew the border, giving more area to what we today call Croatia. The next day, everybody noticed, but didn't say a word, just ordered to sign the document. Anyway, this "treaty" was just the justification which was already done at that time. The areas were already occupied by nationalistic troops, and at the same time, a strong diplomatic game was going on. It was an easy lobby, as the interest were common. Maybe one more interesting point: the name Bratislava and Belgrade was born in 1918-1920. Bratislava from Vrastislav in 10th century (?) who tought to have built a fortress there, Belgrade was always "Nandorfehervar" = "Bulgarian White Castle", later Bjelovar (? correct me).

Fourth: The behaviour of the newly-brewn states, well, we should not call it ethical. The borders in the "treaty" was clear --- but what did ALL the surrounding armies do? Hungary, having no army to defend itself, was an easy prey. The troops did not stop at the borders, but proceeded on. The Great (?) Entente states did nothing to stop them, Romanian troops even took Budapest, and began looting. How do you attest to this, dear Romanians?

Fifth: So what was the REAL point of the treaty? It is also clear. Great Hungary (not Austria-Hungary) was and still is in a strategic and important position. This is where the "West" is trading with Russia, where the "North" meets "South". This is where the trade routes where going for centuries. This is the region of Europe where the was no famine, and scarsely plague in the Middle Ages (this is not relevant, here, sorry). This Carpathian basin had to be divided with peoples living in hatred, to let them fight their petty small wars. The economy was cut off from the diferent regions, and it was simply not functioning for long time. It started to function after dictatorship, after force.

So what is my proposal to dissolve this stress, which will never subdue, if we (Serbs, Romanians, Slovaks, Slovenes, Croats, Ukraininas, Austrians, Hungarians) should re-unite as federal states, each as independent, but as one market. Kingdom of Hungary was a sacral kingdom, under which the ethnics prospered (if not, then they would have been assimilated). I hate to admit it, but we, Hungarians didn't follow ethnic tolerance after Habsurg dualistic monarchy.

I am open to your thoughts, shoot me :) But please, I have also been brainwashed in my youth, pls dont give me nationalistic bullshit. Abdulka 17:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I will answer your fourth point, since you have invited us (Romanians) to answer it. You may bash the Romanian authorities of 1918-1920 on many counts, but not on the occupation of Hungary. It was a fight against the communists, nothing more - the Romanian Royal Army had no intention of annexing the territory (they left after the situation calmed down), nor did it invade Hungary for lack of better things to do (it had lots of new territory to administer, after all, and had a huge number of casualties after WWI, a new war was the last thing the Army and the people wanted, and after all, we got all that we wanted from the war) - it only wanted to get rid of the communists, since it was not sympathetic to reds, and two red neighbors were not a good idea for a liberal state. For the same reason Romania sent forces to fight the Red Army in the Russian civil war. Yes, there was pillaging (as there is in any war), but, in the end, as a liberal, I think Hungary was better off after the invasion, since I guess you wouldn't have liked a communist Hungarian state in the 1920s, right? If it was done for nationalistic/revenge reasons, the Romanian occupation could have been maintained far, far longer, nobody would have opposed it - the Entente countries were, after all, really afraid of communism. As for your proposal, I guess the EU will take care of that, at some point in the future or other. --Xanthar 16:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point, thank you (better Romanians, than Communists...). It is true that the "army" was cca 10.000, but could proceed as there was no "real" army of Hungary at that time. The point 4. was mainly emphasising on looting on National Museum of Budapest, which was stopped by USA colonel Harry Hill Bandholtz. This was (and still is) cutting very much into Hungarian pride. But I agree, it was wartime (even WWI was over). I personally believe in a solution for Transylvania, which is good for all parties (not only Romanian, Hungarian, but German Saxons, too). Abdulka 16:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point? for who? For us, Hungarians, I don't think so ... These are simply urban legends: 'The good Romanian Army fightin against the Communism'... Funny ... They just want to controll and attach as much territories as possible before the treaties ... BTW eg the occupation of Budapest was against the ENTENTE will (the Kun regime collapsed before that).
 * For Abdulka: The Romanian army numbered around 75,000 men when they were on the left bank of Tisza + some 20,000 reserve in Transylvania ... You know the story of Stromfeld vs Juilan ... why Stromfeld resigned, etc, etc ... --fz22 19:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Admitted statements from Trianon
Robert Grower (member of House of Commons in UK): the Benes dictates were already agreed upon in 1918 summer during secret talks. The study of ethnic divergence was started in Nov. 20th, 1918, in France, stating "Slovakia is a mere myth. The Slovak tribes in North Hungary have never made a state before... The borders drawn by French experts do not cross Danube, is not including Bratislava, where for each 14 Slovak there are 86 Hungarian and German".

Henri Pozzi: "Regarding Trianon, it was not about who was right, but rather, who has the interest to have have the truth granted to.(...) The great peacemakers did not have elementary knowledge on the geography, the ethnicity, the history of the nations to settle. Wilson, for example, has always mixed Slovaks with Slovenes. Lloyd Goerge was not more knowledgable. (...) The Romanians behaved like chickens, when they were on the frontline or in the line of fire, and when defeated, they behaved like traitors. After having won the war by others, they had the guts to ask for the reckoning during the Peace Conference."

Henri Clemenceau: "The audaciousness of the Romanians are boundless"

Smuts (South African general): He requested plebiscite for Transylvania, Slovakia, SubCarpathia and Croatia. He told, this right was given to Germany in terms of Holstein, Silezia, end East-Prussia. Even though supported from English, Japanese, Polish and Russian side, the Czech, Romanian and Serb side blocked, in fear of fiasco.

Abbey Weterle (speech in French Parliament in 17 June 1921): "I am confident that in case of plebiscite, neither the Romanians, nor the Serbs would not have received even 1/3 of the votes."

Lloyd George (memoirs, dated 7. Oct. 1929): "The complete documentation, which was given to us by our allies during the Peace Conference was a cheat and untrue."

Nitti (Italian Prime Minister, in his book from 1925): "So far there was one multi-ethnic nation in Carpathian basin, now we have four-five. Hungary will never disclaim Transylvania (...) the revision will have to be done sooner or later."

Benes: "As I have seen the possible dangers, I have started on my own to draft the peace of future in Paris. Almost all what I have done were done by improvising and without bibliography."

Mitterand (told this to poet Gyula Illyes, in 1979, to Hungarian Prime Minister Jozsef Antall, and on a lecture in University of Leipzig): "What happened in Trianon, was a filthy thing".

Prime Minister of Australia, in 1992: "Everybody knows, that Trianon was a huge scam".

Maniu (Romanian Prime Minister): "... during the so-called Hungarian oppression, we, Romanians in Transylvania, had a better life, than now."

Hlinka (Slovak nationalist, in 4/June 1925): "Should the memory of Hungarian Homeland glow within our hearts, as during the thousand-year of Hungarian dominance we have not suffered as much as under the 6 years of Czech dominance" (from the book by USA general Bonsal, "Czechs, Slovaks and Pater Hlinka")

Stipic (leader of Serbs of Hungary): "The six years of Yugoslav regime has brought longing for Hungarian dominance".

Peace! Abdulka 16:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Squash Racket's edits
I have to oppose Squash Racket's new addition. He/she insist on changing a more precise and NPOV sentence "Hungarian politicians have periodically voiced concerns about the treatment of these ethnic Hungarian communities in the neighboring states" into a vague statement "there has been clear doubt about the treatment". Whose doubt? How clear? With no doubt about the doubt? Do we talk about "cler doubt" in all the neighboring countries and for the whole period or just in some of them and for some periods of time (as the cited sources in fact suggest). I believe a vague sentence of this kind reduces quality of this article. As I do not want to be dragged into another revert war with this user, I would appreciate input from other editors of this article, so we can reach consensus here. Tankred 13:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a constant problem since Trianon, I only cited 4(!) sources, because more would be against Wikipedia standards. Periodically suggests 'from time to time'. Frequent reports about beaten up Hungarians is more than just a 'concern'. Squash Racket 13:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you oppose all my edits (title of that section), that sounds like a personal attack to me, for the matter of record. Squash Racket 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not oppose all your edits, only the ones that reduce quality of articles. I do not see any reason why you should consider our disagreement over your particular edit a personal attack against you. Tankred 02:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have also removed a copy&paste text from Britannica. Adding it to Wikipedia without quotation marks, Squash Racket violated copyright of the original authors of the text. For the matter of record, just in case this escalates further, he/she also threatened me in an edit summary if I remove this copyright violation. Tankred 13:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for assuming good faith, I changed that ONE SENTENCE from Britannica. For the matter of record, here is my 'threat': 'once more you remove important referenced material, we will talk to an administrator'.Squash Racket 13:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Squash Racket please assume good faith in working with the other users and please have a more polite attitude regarding them. Nobody want to "atack" you and there is no need to threat other users if they don't agree with you. -- R O   A M A  T  A A  | msg  04:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

("It's important to avoid copyright problems. I would like to point out that even if it was explained to User:Squash Racket the reasons why this cannot be used there, he/she continued to use it and the conversation with User:Squash Racket is quite impossible because of his/her continues accusations and a very hostile attitude. I would ask Squash Racket to try to have a more positive attitude and to try to collaborate with the other users instead of atacking them. -- R O   A M A  T  A A  | msg  04:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)")
 * Your kind words on the Administrators' Noticeboard brought tears to my eyes. Please assume good faith, Roamataa 5 minutes after posting that there. Squash Racket 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

"Clear doubt" makes no sense as an expression. I have restored the original wording but kept the references added by Squash Racket. KissL 10:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Tankred, Roamataa, will we have consensus? There is a saying in Hungary, "if you ask for something you cannot get, you will get something you didn't ask for". Abdulka 10:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of treaty
"Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves" (treaty). But how we call a contract when one of the parties is not negotiating, only has the right to sign the document? Someone can help with this? Squash Racket 04:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That is usually called a Dictatum. Perhaps it would be more appropriate in the title at least as an option, like Trianon Treaty or Dictatum. Giordano Giordani 11:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is what the Hungarians are fighting for since 1920, to call it what it was, really. "Treaty" is more than euphemism here. Abdulka 10:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, you want to call it a Dictatum. But then, so should be called the Paris Peace Treaties, 1947, because after Germany was crushed the Allies imposed pretty much what they wanted. The same with Japan. Dpotop 10:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Abdulka and Squash Racket, I agree with you that Trianon wasn't much of a treaty, but we had better leave this one alone. "Treaty of Trianon" is common parlance in English, no question about it, and trying to rename this article would start a wiki war the likes of which none of us have ever seen before. Not worth the trouble. K. Lásztocska 12:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits by Dpotop
I have re-removed several paragraphs of the "Political Consequences" section, for 3 reasons:
 * 1) WP:OR and WP:POV - Most of the text I removed presents a Pro-Hungarian POV, and sustains it with citations that talk about France, the UK, and other colonial powers. This article is about Hungary. If you want text included, support it with a source on Hungary. If you want text comparing Hungary with France, bring a source comparing them. Otherwise, it's original research.Dpotop 08:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) WP:RS - the last paragraph I removed has as source a web page that looks like a blog! Nothing "reliable" about that. Dpotop 08:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The text speaks about colonisation in general (not in Hungary), and provides sources for that, no problem with that. Exactly which source is unreliable to you? Squash Racket 09:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * False: You give sources on France and England inn a text that talks about Hungarian resentment. This is the very definition of WP:OR, and WP:POV, because:
 * you give no source on the existence of this resentment in Hungarians (WP:POV)
 * you compose your sentiments with arbitrary sources (WP:OR)
 * Dpotop 09:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You may provide better sources, but deletion of well referenced whole paragraphs IS vandalism. And you should also wait for the opinion of others before making so big changes after all the article is important for others too. Squash Racket 09:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Under WP:POV I can delete whatever unsourced text I find, especially when it's obvious soapboxing. Dpotop 09:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The exact source I consider unreliable is. It is an essay (by definition not very reliable) that supports positions took by Hitler, the anti-semitic Hungarian politician Istvan Csurka. Moreover, the essay is completely non-encyclopedic, and probably made because of US-Hungary political ties. Dpotop 09:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This source is unreliable and right wing, but I read it and only one sentence refers to it, why do you delete whole paragraphs? Squash Racket 09:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The first paragraph removed by Dpotop asserts that there are significant differences between the situation in Western European countries versus their countries and the situation in Hungarian-majority versus non-Hungarian majority territories in the KoH. Since there are no sources claiming exactly this, the paragraph fails WP:NOR (more specifically, WP:SYN).

The last paragraph equally asserts something that is not supported directly by the reference. Murray Rothbard is notable, but what we could say without violating NPOV or NOR would be something along the lines "Murray Rothbard, U.S. anarcho-capitalist thinker has suggested revisiting the treaty in an essay written in 1993", which is too marginal in itself to merit inclusion, IMO. If someone assembles comprehensive lists of both people who have hailed this treaty and people who have denounced it, then we could include this information there.

In short, I endorse Dpotop's removals.

KissL 09:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Kissl. I really tried to remove only text that was clearly non-compliant with Wikipedia's policies. Dpotop 09:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also add that no meaningful information was lost in the process:
 * That Hungarians are resenting Trianon is a fact, which is presented (I did not delete the unsourced paragraph on the flags being lowered, etc., which I presume is correct).
 * The paragraph on the hypocrisy of the Western powers had two problems: It was formulated as a fact, not as POV, and it was deceitfully sourced. Well-written and sourced with Hungarian sources on this supposed hypocrisy it could come back to the article.
 * The "colonial" paragraph is weird. In Romania, I have never seen Hungary labelled as a colonial power. National self-determination is not necessarily decolonization. Historically speaking, Hungarians and Saxons had as much the right to live there as Romanians. What Romanians criticise is probably closer to a form of ethnic or religious discrimination.
 * The last paragraph I deleted, the one on the Hungarians under non-Hungarian rule, is the weirdest one. It seemed to say that Western media (?!) should have said something about the Hungarians suffering due to this non-Hungarian rule. As a matter of fact, Western media did so. For instance, the oppression under Ceausescu was criticised by Western governments and media. Also, during the Targu Mures events of 1990, they did take the part of the Hungarians, to the point of presenting a Romanian victim as Hungarian. Also, European countries did force on Romania minority protection standards they don't have at home. This is not bad, but simply says that the paragraph I cut out was propaganda. Dpotop 13:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Epic
Surely in the anals of Wiki History this discussion page must get the award for the most heated and lengthy discussion (argument). When will it end? Surely after another 50 years of peacefully living in the harmonic open borders of the EU will all this bickering and trouble stiring hate be forgotten - thank God! Sidney Bung 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am more pessimistic. This area, called Carpathian basin, which was unified for a millineum, should be divided to "divide et impera" for the "great powers". What the bordering nations of Hungary do not understand is that Hungarians are not willing to harm them! Yet politics are desperately working - even now - to seperate this area. Why should this area be unified? (Sorry, maybe the wording is not perfect..., I do not mean unity under Hungarian rule) It's simple! It is plain economics. It was working well in Kingdom of Hungary. This area is a bridge between East and West, North and South. This area is ONE as thermal sources. The area could live from itself as most resources are here, but not if seperated. Other point is common culture, which should be preserved, but can only be if it is ONE. For example Causescu destroyed tombs in Transylvania, as it was evident it was Hungarian. The foundings in Lepenski Vir/Serbia was "faked" to hide Hungarian roots. This is not about the land, guys! It is to survive! Abdulka 14:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You should be pessimistic - it'll never happen. Sounds a bit more like extreme nationalism to me - be careful you 'guys' don't go down the road to facism or there will be even more economic trouble, after all - present day Hungary has never had it so good! I don't think I have heard the Brits whinge over losing their empire (quarter of the planet). My advice is think to what Hungary in its present form can offer the rest of Europe - well educated, hard working, honest and reliable people - or am I a pessimst too?Sidney Bung 20:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:TALK: ''Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.'' KissL 11:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Banat Republic
Why not introduce the Banat Republic into the article? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Picture and Apponyi

 * 1) That short Gentlemenn is not Apponyi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FiWnTQoBuU vs http://greatesthits-1.tvn.hu/gapponyia.jpg)
 * 2) The picture shows the day of the signing of the treaty on 4 June 1920. On that day ther were no negitioation, the terms were fixed in 1919 ...
 * 3) Apponyi was the chairman of the Hungarian delegation between 7 January and 19 May when they resigned.
 * 4) The treaty was signed by other small potatos. Apponyi wasn't there ...--fz22 (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Red Map.
I deleted this map from the article. This is a map from 1920, representing I don't know what data (it's not clear), for clear propaganda purposes. Just take a look: One would say that Slovakia and Transylvania are void of population, just waiting to be filled in with red. :):) The only way this map can be placed here (or any other article, for that matter) is with proper sourcing and explanations as to what each color represents, and on what data it is based, a.s.o. Dpotop (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Then I'll will revert it. The Austrian map is the propaganda here I must say ... not mine ... Just take a look over the Austrian map: the 2.9 million Romanian population represented with the same weight as Hungarians (10,5 million) ... This is ridiculous ... BTW why the Retezat, Fagaras, Apuseni mnts were counted as Romanian inhabitated lands? Just because there were a few sheperd huton them?? Oops on every square meter of Lake Balaton were standing a Hungarian person, during the census, according the German map :)) I see ...
 * Teleki's famous "Carte Rouge" need a separate article I must accept ... --fz22 (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. The Apuseni are inhabited. Just like Harghita and Covasna are still counted as Hungarian today, even if the population density is so low. Please, cease your propaganda, or label it as such. Dpotop (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but all low density places are left out, Hungarians too as you just pointed out. This map definitely helps an NPOV view of this. The Austrian map does not really explain why Hungarians complained about the Treaty afterwards. Squash Racket (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC) A source for the map: National Geographic Hungary's official website. According to the article Apponyi tried to use that map during the negotiations, but too late, because originally he had wanted to restore the borders of the Kingdom of Hungary. He should have negotiated based on nationalities and census, not territory. Squash Racket (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite right, with the amendment that it was Count Teleki's work. The map was published in January 1920, when several Hungarian diplomats (Apponyi, Teleki, Bethlen) were allowed to present Hungary's position in terms of the "Peace Treaty". The colors roughly correspond to the Austrian map colors, I don't think this need further explanation. --fz22 (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If the source of the map is really National Geographic Hungary's official website, then the presence of the image on Wikipedia is violating the National Geographic copyright.147.175.98.213 (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I said "a" source, not "the" source... Bottomline, it was used during the negotiations, so it will be featured in the article one way or another. Squash Racket (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that National Geographic owns the copyright of a map drawn 80 years ago by a Hungarian scientist. The copyright obviously expired and they are using the map on their website similary like we in wikipedia. Zello (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you at least give us a map with better resolution? It is not readable and the caption '"Red Map" of the nationalities of Hungary' doesn't help much. Additionally, it should be labeled with information about it's origin and that it was used by the Magyar side at the negotiations. The way it is now, it can be (mis)interpreted in various ways.147.175.98.213 (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * We have in the article the Austrian map based on 1910 census, why we need also this "Red map"? Just to confuse our readers? Red map was a propagandistic work of Teleki in his attempt, as a good Hungarian patriot, to keep as much teritorry as possible for Hungary. It is not an accurate map.--MariusM (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put a better explanation about this "Red map" in the article.--MariusM (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see, there were no accurate datas supporting Hungary's case, in 1920. "if it were discovered afterwards that the claims of Hungary were sound and that a whole community of Magyars had been handed over like cattle to Czecho-Slovakia and to Transylvania [:) clever boy], simply because the Conference had refused to examine the Hungarian case", these were Lloyd's words ... --fz22 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I corrected your explanation based on the source in the National Geographic Hungary presented above. No, the goal of the Hungarian side was to restore the borders of the Kingdom of Hungary. They used that map only in the late period of the negotiations although it could have helped reach a more acceptable Treaty if they apply it earlier. According to the article the Italian delegation had warned the Hungarians to use the map, but when they finally did, major questions were already decided. Squash Racket (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Squash Racket, I don't agree with your corrections. In the late phase of the negociations the Hungarian delegation used the plan B, they understood they will not be able to keep the borders unchanged and they used Teleki's map with the purpose to keep as much teritorry as possible. The conference didn't took seriously this map because it is not a reliable map. Uninhabited teritorry was exagerated exactly in areas with non-Hungarian population.--MariusM (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm citing a source, you use your imagination. You think the Italian delegation would have advised to use the map if it had been unreliable? Squash Racket (talk) 13:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, but the Hungarian side was not even invited to present their standpoint ... Look at the "playlist": conference opened on january 1919, -> Hungarian Soviet Republic established in March 1919 -> Austrian government invited in June 1919, (aquired (Buregn)lands from Hungary. Funny! see also the fact: Austria left the Habsburg Monarchy first! :)) ) -> 'questions were already decided' as you wrote correctly in August 1919 -> Apponyi speech on 16 January 1920--fz22 (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact that Austria left the Empire earlier is not funny, it gives insight in the handling of the situation. Cisleithania was federalized to a large extent along ethnic or historic lines, and power was given to a certain extent to local assemblies. OTOH, Hungarians were still holding onto their "nation state" chimera (chimera because Hungarians were a minority). And your discourse doesn't seem to have evolved from that time. Dpotop (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Uninhabited areas in this map are exaggerated especially in regions where inhabitants were non-Hungarians". That would make it NPOV? Squash Racket (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Listen, it's simple: Hungary already controlled the 1910 census, so I presume the results are not completely fair. But nevertheless, I do accept its results as more or less NPOV, as well as its traditional graphical presentation. Now, you are trying to push propaganda material from a very national-extremist time. The "Red map" brings no further information, it's simply a biased presentation of already presented data. Under these conditions, the comment above (from MariusM) is the most NPOV thing that can be done. The real solution is to remove that stupid Red Map, which may be a flag of Hungarian revisionism, but is not a good Wikipedia source. Dpotop (talk) 12:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Red Map was used during the negotiations and this is still an encyclopedia. Propaganda from a National-extremist time? Stupid Red Map? You are using such expressions and still feel entitled to put back that unsourced POV statement with the kind of edit summary you wrote?
 * In fact, the Italian delegation advised the Hungarian delegation to use that "unreliable" map though a bit late (referenced information). You think the National Geographic Hungary is a nationalist/revisionist magazine? Squash Racket (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "uninhabited areas in this map are exaggerated especially in regions where inhabitants were non-Hungarians", I can give a source for this statement, just wait few days. I remember reading about Teleki's map in "Spaţiul istoric şi etnic românesc" (The Romanian historical and ethnic space), I will come soon with details about this book. I don't agree with Dpotop that the Red map is stupid, it was a clever attempt to manipulate the decision of the peace conference, but is still a mainly propagandistic work and is using unscientific methods. The manipulation is visible with naked eye for persons with knowledge about Transylvania. There are no dessertic regions in Transylvania. For example, in the red map almost the entire Hunedoara county (a Romanian-majority region) appear uninhabited. Anybody who make a visit in that region will find plenty of people there (and it was populated in 1919 also).--MariusM (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You 'remember' reading about that? Until you find the book, sourced version may remain? Squash Racket (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Trust me, it will not take long. In the book I told about it was discussed this map, presented as "Teleki's map" (not as "red map"). I will come with details in short time.--MariusM (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To MariusM: here you are the theory behind 'Carte Rouge': Teleki's map was scaled at the ratio 1:100,000. Teleki presumed to be equal the population density in the former Kingdom of Hungary, and he colored every square mm on the map proportionately (1 sq mm = 100 person) and the remaining white spots were placed in the highlands (startin from above) and in the known uninhabitated regions, lakes, forests, etc --fz22 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I found the book "Spaţiul istoric şi etnic românesc", vol. 3, Editura Militară, 1993 ("The Romanian historical and ethnic space", Military Publishing House 1993, ISBN 973-32-0367-X). At pages 18-23 is commented (and reprinted) a map used by the Hungarian delegation at the discussions regarding the Second Vienna Award. It seems I made a mistake confusing Teleki's map used at Trianon Treaty negociations with the map used at the Second Vienna Award, but those maps are similar regarding their mainly propagandistic and manipulative function. Whatever, in Teleki's map almost half of Transylvania appear uninhabited, which is not true (User:Fz22, I saw you are from Transylvania, you must know this, in Transylvania there are no desserts) and can be sourced based on census data. "Presuming an equal population density" is not a scientific method, with wrong presumptions anybody can arrive at wrong conclusions. If we are keeping Teleki's map in the article we should clearly explain the wrong presumptions used for this map.--MariusM (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually this is a scientific issue already, contested by Romanian geographers right after the map and the theory was published. Of course there are no deserts in Transylvania. Still the population density is the point here: How could you explain the fact, that c. 2.9 million Romanian (they took off 33% of KoH while they were representing "only" 12% of the population) has the same coverage as the c. 10 million Hungarian on the Austrian map ... and this is valid for every other ethnographic map I saw so far, except Teleki's map. --fz22 (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed "every other ethnographic map" is agreeing for the big picture with Austrian map but not with Teleki's map. This is a proof that Austrian map is reliable, at least for the big picture of the ethnographic situation. Romanians did live in regions with lower density of population (but not uninhabited, maybe instead of 100 people per sq km there were 30 in mountainous regions). We are already including the census data in KoH in our article, we can expalain further that in Transylvania the density of population was lower (but I clearly don't agree with half of Transylvania being uninhabited, as Teleki's map is claiming). I wonder what maps were used by the Romanian or Czechoslowak delegations, I would not be surprised if those maps are showing as ethnic Romanian or Slowak teritorries some areas which belong to post-Trianon Hungary.--MariusM (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why don't we change the wording? "Regions with low density of population are colored white on the map" or something like that. You can bring other officially used maps if you have a source for them. Squash Racket (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No this proves nothing. Every map I saw it was created quite simple. The authors draw the borders, and colored the lands, without considering the density, and the 100% deserted lands (lakes, high mountains). Teleki's map was a model, as we have in mathematics. He just put another neglected variable on the map ... --fz22 (talk) 13:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the regions declared "uninhabited" in the red map are mainly inhabited by minorities is sourced by the Austrian ethnographic map which is just above in the article.--MariusM (talk) 00:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't mix those two maps. Also look at post-Trianon Hungary on the Red Map and you can see that there are territories there considered uninhabited too (Lake Balaton, east of the river Tisza). Higher mountainous regions (Carpathians) naturally have lower density of population. Squash Racket (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You asked for a source for the statement that "many regions inhabited by non-Hungarians are considered in Teleki's map as uninhabited". I provided a source - the Austrian ethnographic map. Indeed, Lake Balaton is uninhabited, but not half of Transylvania.--MariusM (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see the western part of post-Trianon Hungary and the territory east of the Tisza on the Red Map. These are territories are inhabited by Hungarians, still presented as uninhabited on the map because of the low density. The "inhabited by non-Hungarians" part is factually inaccurate to say the least, that's why I removed it. Transylvania being in the Carpathians has more territory with low density of population than post-Trianon Hungary.
 * By your standards we can also include the statement "many regions inhabited by Hungarians are considered in Teleki's map as uninhabited", that's why we don't need additional reference for the nationality. Squash Racket (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian-populated Transylvanian mountains like the Hargita and the hills of Csík are considered uninhabited on the map. What's the difference with Apuşeni? Zello (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In ethnic Hungarian teritorry the red map shows 10% uninhabited. In ethnic Romanian, Ruthenian or Slowak teritorry red map is showing 50% uninhabited. This is the way Mr. Teleki wanted to manipulate the decision of the peace conference. We should explain this in the article, if we are keeping this red map.--MariusM (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have seen this map in a book once, with the method explained on it in Hungarian and English. It claimed to be a reproduction of the original. I'll look it up and copy the English text here, if you guys will be patient for a few days.

Anyways, from what I remember, the method was to make the areas filled with a certain colour proportionate to the number of people having the respective ethnicity. White spots were defined by a population density below a certain limit where representing the population in the exact location where they live would have led to a lot of small, separated spots whose sizes would be hard to tell apart. However the people living in these areas are represented as living in the nearest settlement that is sizeable enough to be coloured of its own right, this I remember for sure.

The viewpoints that "the 1910 census data on which the map is based are biased" / "this map can be used to create the false impression that many regions where Hungarians are a minority are uninhabited anyway" are logically acceptable and notable enough to be represented in the article with the proper citations. On the other hand, since the map doesn't use the word "uninhabited" and explains in detail why white areas are white, throwing around expressions like "propaganda material", accusing Teleki of creating the map with a propaganda purpose in the first place, or saying that the method of representing ethnicities proportionately to their numbers (as opposed to the land area they inhabit) is "unscientific" is just ridiculous. Even on the talk page. Especially because having proportionately less reds AND purples over a certain area within Transylvania doesn't make that area visually any redder than before, right? So I fail to see how that would have helped Hungary gain lands that don't "belong to" her in terms of ethnic justice.

To which I will add: if I were as much of a hot-headed nationalist as some people around here seem to be, I could start yelling "propaganda" because the Austrian map represents nationalities proportionately to the land area they inhabit, thus creating the false impression that the Hungarians made up much less of the population of the KoH than they actually did ("look at the map, dammit, does it look like there's four times as much green as there is orange???") – but I'm not, so we'll not start this kind of discussion.

The bottom line is that the two maps are fair in different ways, and can be used to create false impressions in yet other different ways (and no doubt they were both used as much as possible for both their fair and unfair ends). I see no reason why they shouldn't both be included – with the appropriate commentary, of course. KissL 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that "red map" is fair, and it is not only my opinion but it was also the opinion of the peace conference. Red map was made with the specific purpose of being used in the peace conference, using a method which was never before or after accepted by the scientific community. In no serious ethnographic map about any region of the world is used the method of representing the population from the areas bellow a certain density in nearby regions. Indeed, Austrian map didn't take in account the density of population, but why should it? This is not a standard for ethnographic maps. It didn't take in account other variables also, like the wealth of the population or the industrial development of different regions etc. Should we mention all the variables that were not taken in account by the Austrian map? For density or economic development of different regions there are other maps which can be included in the article. Based on the red map our readers will believe that Hungary lost only half-uninhabited teritorries, which is not the case. Contrary with the red map, Austrian map was not made with the specific purpose to be used at the peace conference, with some new invented methods. My point is that we should clearly state that the impression of half-uninhabited regions which the red map is showing about the areas lost by Hungary is wrong, and also that we don't need to explain at the Austrian map that it didn't show the density of population as there is no normal expectation for an ethnographic map to show the density of population.--MariusM (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"half-uninhabited regions which the red map is showing about the areas lost by Hungary" - this a distortion of the facts. There is no difference in the method regarding the lost and retained territories. Similarly there is no difference in the method regarding Hungarian-populated regions and others. Zello (talk) 22:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I really liked your careful choice of the words "no difference in the method". The low-density mountainous territories are shown as uninhabited because they were inhabited mostly by non-Magyar peoples. High-density lowlands are shown as inhabited because their population was mostly Magyar. Although the method might have been used consistently, its very choice over more standard methods inflates the number of Magyars living in the region. Tankred (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Low density mountainous territories of Székelyland are shown as uninhabited although they were populated by Magyars. Big areas of Transdanubia are also shown as uninhabited, so the method have been used consistently. Population density is not an insignificant factor and another map using the more traditional method were added together with the red map. The caption explains the method used. There is nothing misleading in the present version. Zello (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the term "fake impression" is nowhere near NPOV, or even imitating NPOV. Also, please stop forcing (and then refuting) the notions "uninhabited" or "unpopulated". Both the red map itself (I'll really dig it up, promise) and the caption I formulated for it a few days ago make an effort to dismiss that incorrect interpretation. KissL 14:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW the Red map was a "equal area cartogram, otherwise known as density-equalising map" from the pre-IT era. Take a look over these maps: http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=9

--fz22 (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Map - original text
I've found it. Here goes: Ethnographical maps hitherto disregarded the density of population. They cover densely inhabited regions and those with scattered population equally with plain colouring. On ethnographical maps of Europe 2.4 million Norvegians are represented by a bigger coloured surface, than the 43 million inhabitants of Great Britain, and 30,000 Lapponians by an equal surface. This conveys to the general reader a wrong impression, especially as to the relative weight of ethnical groups of population.

In the present map I have tried to provide the general reader, — the man in a hurry — with a map enabling him to recognise at first glance the number and nationality of the population. The map is both an ethnographical and a demographical one.

Every square millimeter of coloured surface represents 100 inhabitants, the respective colour being that of their nationality. The white spaces represent the relatively uninhabited regions with scattered population and so small villages only that they could not be represented (i. e. printed) on a map of this scale. But you find all these people included and represented. Not a single soul remains unrepresented, scattered population of the mountains, woods, steppes and swamps being counted and represented with that of the valley, or of the next greater village.

The emphasis is in the original, as is the typo "Norvegians".

The title of the map is "Ethnographical map of Hungary based on density of population by Count Paul Teleki, Professor of Geography. Every square millimeter coloured indicates 100 inhabitants. According to the census of 1910."

BTW, the map is included as an attachment in a 1928 book titled "Igazságot Magyarországnak!" ("Justice for Hungary!") containing a collection of essays written by prominent Hungarian statesmen of the time.

KissL 09:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is the same book as Justice for Hungary: Review and Criticism of the Treaty of Trianon that was published in English in 1928. A clearly partisan book had only one aim - to influence the public opinion so the borders would be revised. The book's review in International Affairs (the most important international relations journal of that period) said the book made "grotesque assertions". The caption of the map should also include some criticism. Otherwise, it is not NPOV. Tankred (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Tancred. KissL's explanations are an excellent confirmation of my previous statement: "there is no normal expectation for an ethnographic map to show the density of population". This is why we don't need those explanations in the caption of the Austrian map, which was made according to the standards of ethnographic maps, used by the scientific community then and now. The only problem with Austrian map is the accuracy of the 1910 census. Regarding Teleki's map (we should label it such, not "red map"), it is not an opinion but a fact that he wanted to create the impression that many regions are uninhabited, Teleki himself told that those regions are "relatively uninhabited" (well, from Einstein we know that everything is relative). Representing the population of mountains, woods, steppes "with that of the valley or of the next greater village" is not a scientific method, it was a method invented by Teleki. There were more than 100 inhabitants in those "relatively uninhabited" regions, but Teleki had a new inovation - he "moved" (on the map) the population of mountains (inhabited mainly by Romanians and Ruthenians) into the valleys and expanded the population of the cities (densely populated, inhabited mainly by Hungarians) on larger areas. Those are not opinions, but facts about this map.--MariusM (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "Every square millimeter of coloured surface represents 100 inhabitants" If there were no 100 people there it did not get colored, simple as that. 1 dot on the map represents 100 people that is the method, nothing more, nothing less. Hobartimus (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The caption describes the map in a correct way, I guess there is no doubt about that. Would anyone of you tell us exactly what kind of criticism would you include? The original goal of the Hungarian delegation was to restore the borders of the Kingdom. The goal with the Red Map was to modify the borders to create the most homogeneous states possible. MariusM, before any more comments try to understand the way the map was created. We are talking about the Red Map here only, not about a whole book! Squash Racket (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Re Tankred: yes, it's surely the same book. I haven't read it (yet?) but "grotesque assertions" were not uncommon on either side of such debates; however, as Squash Racket points out, we are talking about the map, not the book. Do elaborate however on the criticism you'd like to see included in the caption.


 * Re Marius: "not a scientific method but a method invented by Teleki" is just funny. That's like someone saying, at about the same time, "the relativity theory has nothing to do with the science of physics, it's just an invention of Einstein". Ever heard of non quis sed quid? Talking about Teleki's intentions as if you were in a position to know is MPOV, at the very least. In fact what I don't quite get is – does anyone have an objection against the stated purpose of the map (i.e. the representation of ethnicities proportionately their numbers)? And since I cannot think of any even remotely reasonable objection to that – does anyone have a better, or let's put it "more scientific", way of doing that than Teleki's approach? (Note that even if you do, that's insufficient reason to say so in the article; we'll need a reliable source describing the same viewpoint. But I doubt this will become our main problem.) KissL 13:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Re Hobartimus: in the regions of Transylvania left blank in Teleki's map there were living not 100, but hundreds of thousands people. As I told, there are no deserts in Transylvania, don't trust Teleki, trust me! Or asked for other maps, maybe demographic maps with density of populations.
 * Re KissL: You are assuming that Teleki's intentions was to provide an accurate picture of the demographic situation of Transylvania. Your assumptions are against NPOV. Criticism about Teleki's map should be included in the article. While Einstein is widely recognised in the scientific community, Teleki's map was not taken into account by the peace conference and nobody except revisionist propaganda considered this map as reliable.--MariusM (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Regions with low density of population were colored white, that's all. There is not much difference between the density of very high mountainous regions and deserts. Do you have other demographic maps with density of population?
 * Exactly what kind of criticism would you include? Hope no "fake impressions" or something like that. The Italian delegation advised the Hungarian delegation to use the map, but it was too late for that, because Hungarians negotiated to restore the original borders of the Kingdom. The Red Map would have never been used by revisionist propaganda, because based on it the original borders couldn't be restored. Squash Racket (talk) 05:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a few thoughts:

1) Different choices of the threshold density (100/mm^2 in this case) in such a map produce different maps. And these different maps leave a different visual impression. A legitimate question is why 100 and not 50 (or 10, or 75)? Well, it seems like even now Hungarians and Romanians like to present the same facts in different ways in order to prove different points. And we can imagine how much stronger this was in 1920. For me, as a Romanian, it's not hard to guess that the main reason behind the compilation of this map was to generate a map that can be as red as possible. And where it's impossible to get the red, then let's choose the appropriate threshold density that will give us white (rather than another colour). What I'm trying to say is that the choice of the threshold density is a very subjective matter.

2) I cannot see the point of such a map in the context of the Treaty of Trianon. How is the population density relevant when deciding if a region should belong to a nation or another. The world is definitely not made up by countries having similar population densities. And Norway/UK is a very good example indeed. All that mattered at the time was "who had the majority in a particular region?". And no matter what is the choice of the threshold density (and consequently how many white regions you obtain), to me it is clear that these white regions should be associated with their respective majorities. I'm really curious to find out what other people think. Who should administrate the regions that have a population density below a certain level? Shall it be the UN? Alexrap (talk) 13:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The choice for the threshold is, although not explicitly stated in the text, self-evident by looking at the map: Teleki obviously chose the lowest possible density using which it was not necessary to represent the inhabitants of densely populated areas outside the settlement/area they inhabit. (Had he chosen a limit of 50 (or 10, or 75), he would have had to move some reds far away from where they belong, into the areas that are white on the current map. Now that would really be an outrageous falsification – and since the resulting map would be quite redder than the current one, the argument "the main reason behind the compilation of this map was to generate a map that can be as red as possible" doesn't seem to hold.) Moreover, following this logic, the matter is pretty objective: he's gone as low with the threshold as he possibly could.


 * The point of the map in the context of the Treaty of Trianon is less obvious, but I think I have a safe guess: he wanted to make sure that the decision-makers get the picture about mixed populations (which is probably the most interesting in Transylvania where there were virtually no Hungarian-majority areas except the Székelys, yet a lot of Hungarians overall). By seeing the borders on a majority map, one doesn't expect nearly as many Hungarians in Romania as there actually were, because many of them are "hidden" by the Romanian majorities. Whereas with Teleki's map, it is not only possible to see that, but it is even simple to calculate, for any proposed border between countries X and Y, the number of Xians remaining in Y and vice versa.


 * Finally, I'd like to point out (again) that having a lot of white areas doesn't make those areas any redder. If the population there is 75% Romanian (purple) and 25% Hungarian (red), you'll have three times as many purples there as reds. No way to cheat anyone into thinking that's a "red area". KissL 14:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the choice of the threshold is not exactly self-evident. You made a guess, I made another. You could be right, or I could be right. Or we could both be wrong. But let's not get into philosophical issues now. What you did really well was to point out an important problem of such maps: they don't do a good job for heterogeneous regions (heterogeneous from a population density point of view). They imply moving populations: both from regions with more than 100/mm^2, and from regions with less than 100/mm^2. Imagine one particular mm^2 on the map with 150 Romanians and 150 Hungarians. Which one do I move. And where? And what is the relevance of the final result? As I was saying, all that mattered at the time was who had the majority in a particular region? Without moving populations around.


 * Yes, you are right, in Transylvania there were virtually no Hungarian-majority areas except the Székely area, yet a significant number of Hungarians overall. But we can only say that this is very interesting (and odd) if we ignore the fact that the region actually had a majority. And this is one thing some people like to ignore. They refuse to see the big picture. Yes, the region had a significant number of Hungarians. But it had twice as many Romanians. And it had to be administrated by someone. By who else, if not by the nation that was in majority?


 * Yes, you are right again. White does not mean red. It just artificially reduces the influence of the purple. And it does that because it starts from wrong premises: that people should be spread around the globe in constant densities. Alexrap (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So let's take your example 150 Hungarians 150 Romanians I see that you are critical of 'moving them' (in truth representing them), so what is your solution in your own example? Am I guessing correctly that you would simply delete the Hungarians (even though they are equal 150-150) and simply color the space on the map with the color of Romanians? What if there are also 100 Germans and number of Croats and others living on the same mm^2 so the "majority" is actually about 30%? Do you think that is an accurate representation of population? So what is the correct, fair and accurate solution to your own example of 150 Hungarians 150 Romanians? Hobartimus (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hobartimus, I failed to understand why we should discuss here your guessings about Alexrap. The problem is simple: Teleki moved the population in his map, this is why there is a wrong impression about the teritorries lost by Hungary as being half uninhabited. We should explain this in the article, if we include Teleki's map. If Alexrap will publish a map and he will want his map on this article, then criticism about Alexrap's map will be legitimate.--MariusM (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Hobartimus, I have no problem in representing everyone, but unfortunately maps like the one we call "the red map" in here are not the right tool for that. You could use for example several maps like this one. One for each ethnic group. Or you could have just one map with mixed regions coloured with different nuances. There are many solutions that don't imply moving populations and don't assume a constant population density, like "the red map" does. Alexrap (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The Austria-Hungary map gives a wrong impression, 2.5 million ethnic Hungarians live in Hungary's neighboring countries today. If you want to include criticism, we can discuss, but don't make the NPOV desriptions of the maps POV. Squash Racket (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 38% percent of Transylvania was forest land in 1895 ... These lands were represented as Romanian (80%) and Hungarian (20%) populated lands ... very scientific, isn't it? --fz22 (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Squash Racket, I'm a bit confused. What is the wrong impression you are talking about? An ethnic map is an ethnic map. Everyone knows that. And are we talking about 1920 or 2008?


 * Fz22, how did you calculate the 38-80-20 percentages? You might be right, only that it's the first time I hear about them. Anyway, who should "own" the forests if not the people that live next to them? What's so not scientific about that? So what if it's just 10 Hungarians living in that mm^2 of forest? They live there, the place is inhabited and an ethnic map should reflect that. And ethnic maps always do reflect that. But coming back to the relevance of the map in this article, in your opinion, if it's less than 100 people per mm^2, then that area should have been divided according to what? Alexrap (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see that you are a bit confused. In my opinion an ethnic map should 'reflect' Hungarians who lived in modern Hungary's neighboring regions in 1920 too. The Austria-Hungary map clearly fails to do that. Squash Racket (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * the owner? ;) 37% of the lands were large estates in T. (>100 acre) ... the 38 percent was taken from a book about sylviculture in Transylvania. Use this maps: http://www.kia.hu/konyvtar/erdely/terkep.htm and add to them an extra layer with the relief of Transylvania in any graphical software ... --fz22 (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "if not the people that live next to them?" In writing that you are doing the exact same thing that you criticized. You move the people who live next to the forest (your words) into the forest on the map. When you spread the people who live next to the forests, next to the high mountains and on the map you place them right on top of a 2500m high mountain and deep into the forests and deep into the swamps on the map that is questionable indeed. And yet the Austrian map did exactly that and has a number of other problems as well, but the reader can decide for himself, the methodology for both maps is already given in the caption. There is no need to introduce POV captions. Hobartimus (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Squash Racket, I was confused by you talking about the "2.5 million ethnic Hungarians that live in Hungary's neighboring countries today" (i.e. 2008) in the discussion page of an article relating to 1920.

Fz22, I wrote <<"own">> and not just < > because I was not talking about the actual owner of a particular forest, but the state that in the 1920 context was most entitled to administrate the whole land these forests were in.

Hobartimus, you are missing an important point. There were (and still are) very few uninhabited places in Transylvania. There is no 2500m high mountain at all, they are all quite a lot less than that. And people always lived in the mountains as well, although in lower population densities than the ones encountered in the plains. The red map did not make white just the uninhabited regions. It artificially made white all the regions with population densities below a certain threshold. I would like to meet a single person who knows a bit about Transylvania and is not intrigued at all by the fact that large regions from Hunedoara, Alba, Sibiu, Bistrita, Arad, Harghita, Brasov, Bihor, Maramures, Cluj, Covasna appear on this "red map" as uninhabited.

And finally a very important point that apparently I was not able to get across. In the context of the Treaty of Trianon, the important issue was who was living in a particular region. With the focus on the region, and not on the overall population from the whole former Austria-Hungary. Different regions had different population densities and they had to be considered separately. Chosing thresholds like 100 people per mm^2 of the map is very subjective. I could probably undestand a threshold like inhabited/uninhabited. But anything else is just wrong because it creates the impression that an artificially chosen population density defines whether people from a regions are ignored (and moved next to other people) or not. Alexrap (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "There were (and still are) very few uninhabited places in Transylvania" How do you know how many uninhabited places were in Transylvania in 1910? Were you there in 1910(you talk a lot about 'today' but notice the argument is about 1910)? You were just told that 38% was forest land, you were told that there are a lot of mountains there including 2500m high mountains there and your answer was? There is no 2500 high mountain at all What about the "The Southern Carpathians (Romanian: Carpaţii Meridionali), also called the Transylvanian Alps" you should check again about the 2500m before I am forced to quote the whole article. Also saying absurd things like "people always lived in the mountains as well" (notice the word "always") will hardly help your argument. And you again managed to completely confuse the meaning of the white color on the map, in one sentence you write "The red map did not make white just the uninhabited regions." and a little later you write "large regions ... appear on this red map as uninhabited." You play with the meaning of the white color on the map as you see fit, once it means "uninhabited" once it means "below a certain threshold" and you use different meanings within a single post. What's importan here though is not to lose sight of the original argument, which is about maps based on 1910 data, and not 'ownership' of uninhabited forests or how many places are inhabited today or where the Hungarian railroads were. I think pretty much everything was said in relation to the maps and now we are just repeating the same arguments and running in circles. Hobartimus (talk) 01:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, why don't we try to hold our horses a bit? Hobartimus, I'm trying to keep a certain level for this discussion, but you are not helping at all. Either my English is extremely bad, or you prefer not to understand what I'm saying.

1) It's not just me knowing how many uninhabited places were in Transylvania in 1910. Everyone (including yourself) knows that. It's not rocket science. There are extremely few (if any) new settlements founded in Transylvania after 1910. Almost all the increase in population from 1910 to 2008 is the result of the urban population increase. Actually many rural places have nowadays less population than in 1910. You can easily check everything I said above just by having a look at the Census data. Try this website for example.

2) I was just told that there are 38% forest land in Transylvania? Are you joking? I don't need to be told that. My question to Fz22 was how he calculated the 38-80-20 percentages. Meaning that 80% of the 38% were represented as Romanian and 20% of the 38% as Hungarian. He didn't answer the question. But I chose not to continue that argument as it was pointless. Apparently you didn't get it.
 * beyobnd the bald statement of the facts (38%) please consider the following: Romanian were traditionally mountaineers. We could calculate with the general percentage in Transylvania (35% Hu vs 55% Romanians) however a 20-80 estimation is more apropiate here. using the contemporary census datas (Hungary=92,000skm with 7,6 million; Transylvania=102,000skm with a total population of 5,3 million) we get a 82 person/skm in post-Trianon Hungary and only 50 person/skm in Transylvania. Funny enough but exclucding the forest lands (38%) the final result will aproximate the post-Trianon-1910-Hungary average ... --fz22 (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The question was how did you estimate that 80% of the forest land was represented as Romanian on the 'A-U map'. And you gave me the answer now: you guessed it based on the general ethnic composition in Transylvania (one correction here: no census recorded 35% for Hungarians, even the problematic 1910 one came up with the all-times maximum of 31.6%) and also based on the fact that Romanians were traditionally mountaineers. I repeat, this guess might be correct, but I was just curious to find out how you came up with this distribution. Actually my guess is that more than 80% of the high hills and mountain regions were in fact inhabited by Romanians. Because Hungarians and Germans were concentrated in urban areas in significantly higher numbers than Romanians. But this is again just a guess. Anyway, I didn't continue asking about these things because they are not directly relevant to our discussion here.
 * The important thing in here is that the "red map" shows as white (implying uninhabited) large regions that are actually inhabited. And as I already said above, many of them were even "more inhabited" in 1910 (see censuses). I'm sure that, if you travelled and hiked a bit through our region, you know what I mean. Alexrap (talk) 16:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

3) I don't know on how many 'over 2500m Romanian peaks' you've actually been, but I can tell you that I've been on all 5 of them. And they are all at the very border between Transylvania and Wallachia, so practically irrelevant to our talk here. That is what I meant. And before starting to give lessons to the others, it's advisable to get it right for yourself first. The Southern Carpathians and Transylvanian Alps are not at all the same thing. I'll leave it to you to find out what the difference is. In any case, there is no 2500m peak in the Transylvanian Alps. They are all less than 1850m.

4) The statement "people always lived in the mountains as well" is not absurd at all. Mountain does not mean "the peak of the mountain".

5) I didn't "confuse any meaning" regarding the white on the map. Please try to read the sentence again. I was just saying that regions that were inhabited in reality appear as white on the map (thus implying that they were uninhabited). Which is wrong and extremely misleading. Alexrap (talk) 12:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This whole discussion shows that Teleki's map is considered POV and misleading by a great number of editors. Since it is so controversial and the used method is not standard in the field of ethnography, I think we should remove the map from the article. Tankred (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Teleki map is an important historical document itself. I understand and agree that some editors tried to add a longer, neutral, explanatory caption (I think that present one is fair, but we can disagree) but the total removal is an absurd claim. Contemporary pictures, maps, caricatures are the best kind of illustratrions for historical articles. Zello (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I will try to respond shortly. 3)"And they are all at the very border between Transylvania and Wallachia, so practically irrelevant to our talk here." Thank you for admitting that, I just checked the border region with Wallachia on the red map and I found that it's mostly represented with white, so when we talk about the white regions of the map it's anything but irrelevant.3b)I merely quoted the first line of the Southern_Carpathians wiki article I thought that was pretty clear. 5) The red map itself clearly states the meaning of white "uninhabited AND sparsely populated areas" there is no implication that they are all uninhabited. Both the current caption and the red map itself makes it clear what the exact meaning of the white color is there is no implying after that. Hobartimus (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Minorities in post-Trianon Hungary
I wonder how accurate are the data about post-Trianon Hungary. While is normal that German language, which was an official language of the Austro-Hungary and was taught in schools, was spoken not only by ethnic Germans, which is the explanation for such a big number of non-Slovaks speaking Slovak, non-Romanians speaking Romanian, non Serbo-Croatians speaking Serbo-Croatian (5% speaking Slovak but only 1,8% ethnic Slovaks; 2,2% speaking Serbo-Croatian but only 1% South Slavs; 1,1% speaking Romanian but only 0,3% ethnic Romanians)? My guess is that the number of minorities in post-Trianon Hungary was higher but social pressure made some of the citizens of other ethnic backgrounds to declare themselves Hungarians.--MariusM (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the source for that data? 'Bilingual people' means people speaking those languages as a second language? (Especially the data for German is suspicious.) Squash Racket (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just look in our Wikipedia article . I don't know who added those data in the article and on which basis (maybe official census?). I remember reading in some nationalist Romanian writings about 80000 Romanians left in post-Trianon Hungary (and even about 250000), I never thought that those are reliable data, it was a surprise for me to see in this Wikipedia article that there were 88828 Romanian speakers in post-Trianon Hungary, I start thinking that maybe the 80000 figure which I saw but never trust before can still be close to reality.--MariusM (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

These numbers were added by Juro, I remember our discussion long ago. I thought them suspicious, so I looked up the 1920 census data and added the much lower official numbers for mother language which are more realistic. I checked the "bilingual numbers" and they were correct, see "Correct Data" section above with citation. I also gave some explanation there for the reasons behind. Zello (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explanations.--MariusM (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Consequences map
Well done Fz22, very nice map. I think it is really useful in this article and it looks professional. Some comments though:

1) The bar that shows percentages of ethnic groups in the different regions is 100% full in the case of Hungary and Kingdom of Hungary and only partially full in all the other cases. I presume that it's somehow related to the corresponding population density of each region, but I'm not sure and it's quite hard to guess. An explanation in the description page would be very useful.

2) I can't see the rule of ordering the way in which ethnic groups are represented in the bars. One option would be to have them ordered according to each respective region (e.g. for Slovakia the bar should show from let to right Slovaks, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Germans, others). This would probably be the best option, since the map wants to illustrate consequences of the Treaty. Another option would be to order them according to the percentages in the whole Kingdom of Hungary (this is probably not the best option if we want to show consequences). The present rule, if any, is quite confusing though. What's the rule?

3) The 2 long arrows in the centre/bottom of the image suggest that people from Vojvodina and Međimurje and Prekmurje are represented together? Why? Alexrap (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you.
 * 1. it represents the population of the given region proportional with the population of the post-Trianon Hungary and splitted between the major ethnic groups. (eg. Trianon Hungary had a pop. of 7.6 while Transylvania 5.2 million)
 * 2. I accept this segment of the map is a bit Hungarian POV. It starts with the former state constituent ethnic groups, the Hungarians and Germans
 * 3. the lands ceded to the SCS Kingdom had diferent status: - proper Hungary/Croatia/Rijeka (see the smaler arrow for Fiume/Rijeka). Regards --fz22 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

NY Times article as a reference
It seems that there is a little bit of "edit-war" going on about the addition of this NY Times article as a reference in here. Squash Racket added it 2-3 days ago, MariusM removed it, then it was added again by Hobartimus and Squash Racket.

Well, it seems that this neverending story continues on the same note. It's very sad that we tend to go into the same sort of Romanian-Hungarian edit wars over and over again. But let's try to put our objective glasses on, rather than being emotional about things.

At least to me, using that NYT article as a reference in here is very artificial and, to be honest, quite childish. It is referenced in 3 places: Now, which one of this three statements do you honestly think that needs that new NYT article as a reference? All three things are already well-known facts and if they would need any reference at all, it should certainly be something else.
 * to support the fact that the Treaty of Trianon is a Peace treaty concluded at the end of WWI
 * to support the fact that, as a result of the Treaty, Hungary lost over two-thirds of its territory
 * to support the fact that Székely Land includes a significant Hungarian population

Therefore, at least to me (although I can be accused of being subjective here) it is obvious that the idea behind having that reference in here is exactly the oposite of what it should be. Normally, we should use references to improve the article, and not use the article to advertise references. Alexrap (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article badly needs in-line citations. Some editors slapped a number of citation tags on the article. The New York Times reference (unlike most of the main sources presented):
 * deals with some issues of this article
 * reliable
 * English language
 * and neutral
 * I think it is very strange that exactly that reference is questioned and not the East European ones. You can add more sources if you will, but don't delete one of the few that is really according to Wikipedia policies. Squash Racket (talk) 12:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For historical events like the Treaty of Trianon which was concluded 90 years ago we should use historical academic studies on the subject (there are plenty of them) and not recent newspaper articles which are only tangentially talking about the subject. I agree with Alexrap that the editors who included this refference wanted to advertise the NYT article, not to improve the Wikipedia article.--MariusM (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When the article has hundreds of references each of them more reputable reliable and neutral than the NYT we can safely discuss removing references. Removing a reference (something we have so little of) and replacing it with absolutely nothing much less reliable and neutral "academic studies" seems and odd choice to make. If you wanted to replace it with a better more reliable more neutral or even "academic" source that would be a different story and I could see how that could "improve Wikipedia". I cannot see such improvement with plain removal. Hobartimus (talk) 22:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The reliable, English language, neutral reference supports four points of the article, there is no valid reason for its removal. Squash Racket (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Two points in here:
 * 1) I have nothing against this NYT article. Although I don't agree that everything American is always wonderful and reliable and everything East European is always bad. Especially when it comes to issues about East Europe itself.
 * 2) Squash Racket, do you really think that it supports 4 points of the article? Do we need a 2008 newspaper article to tell us that the 1920 Trianon treaty was a Peace Treaty concluded at the end of WWI? And for the other 3 points is just as absurd. It's like citing an article from a 2008 Hungarian newspaper to support the fact that the US Declaration of Independence happened in 1776. I would have expected more Hungarian editors that are extremely active in here to take a stance on this. Alexrap (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Still no valid reason for removal. It supports a piece of new information too added based on that reference. Anyone may comment here, but usually NYT articles are good enough for FAs, so I don't see much problem with the source.
 * Alexrap, with the energy you invested into these comments you could have found other sources to further improve the article. Squash Racket (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's about quality, and not quantity. As I said, I have nothing against the article itself, but using it as a reference for the points I mentioned above is ridiculous. And this is not an "ethnic debate". It's just about trying to maintain a certain quality for this article. I'll try to keep the reference, but cite it where appropriate. Alexrap (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So you leave there the text of the Treaty instead, which is NOT even a third party, neutral source. Removing reliable, neutral references is usually the last thing to do before the article becomes FA, but only if there is a very good reason for it. You haven't mentioned one. Squash Racket (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's also a primary source see WP:PRIMARY which is explicitly discouraged and should probably be never used when secondary sources are available on the same issue. I agree that it is possible to find better references for these points, so let's replace it when we found something better, but don't replace it with worse or nothing that's just decreases the quality of the article. Hobartimus (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I asked administrators to reinsert it, it happened, hopefully this time the article remains there supporting (at least) all the four statements. It would be helpful if we could pull up possibly English language academic sources and add them with inline citations. Squash Racket (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw this on WP:AN/I - I don't understand the fuss. Leave it there as it's better than no citation.  If and when someone can produce a citation from a "more appropriate" reference (preferably English-language, although it doesn't have to be), then by all means do so, but in the meantime, keep the NYT reference there. Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  14:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Got to agree with Neil here ... my mind boggles at the fact that a reliable, third-party, published source like a New York Times article is being intentionally removed from this article. Considering the article is over 3000 words with fewer than a dozen English-language citations, who cares if the citations are not from an academic source?  If an editor with a literal interpretation of WP:VER were to remove all un-cited material from this article, I doubt it would be much more than 100 words long.  --Kralizec! (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Neil and Kralizec, the "fuss" was created because the NYT article is not directly related with the subject of this article. It's about the situation of today's Szekely minority in Romania. At least for me, citing it for at least some of the points looked very awkward. Something like citing only for the sake of citing. If you analyse point by point the discussion in here and read the whole NYT article, you might get an idea about "why all this fuss?". Anyway, it seems like there is an agreement between all of us that an academic source would be more appropriate. A trip to the library and a very short search in there pointed me towards several books. I will insert them as references in the article. Alexrap (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * An opinion of the fourth administrator supporting the reference:"Provided the content accurately reflects the source it is citing, it seems clear that no one should object to the use of The New York Times as a source. The one possible exception I could see would be if there were already two or three sources supporting a fact that were of an even higher quality than the NYT article, in which case it might be deemed superfluous to use the article as an additional source, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Everyking (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)"
 * Adding (possibly English language) academic sources is welcome, but a single source is no reason to remove the reference we are talking about. Squash Racket (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Text of the Treaty
The text of the Treaty should either be in the references or the external links. It is mentioned twice in the article right now. Squash Racket (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:EL I removed it from the external links. Squash Racket (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Since we have enough secondary sources now in the lead I removed the Britannica reference. You should activate a free trial for it anyway unless you have access to it. Squash Racket (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

neutrality
sorry!!!!!!!!!????? --Nina.Charousek (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * wtf?Baxter9 (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

it is a POV and a clear falsification of history: it is fact The treaty declared that the Austro-Hungarian Empire was to be dissolved: Whereas the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has now ceased to exist, and has been replaced in Hungary by a national Hungarian Government.--Nina.Charousek (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Next time academic level sources get removed, admins will look into this. The Treaty was concluded with Hungary, not Austria-Hungary. Squash Racket (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Squash Racket. Also you removed sourced informations: "Hungary lost over two-thirds of its territory, about two-thirds of its inhabitants under the treaty and 3.3 million ethnic Hungarians"Baxter9 (talk) 15:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Trianon is as well today a valid treaty, it say Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has now ceased to exist, that mean Hungary can not lost territory, it is an enterely new country. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 15:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please also read the text of the treaty if you refer to it. By the time the treaty was concluded, Austria-Hungary had ceased to exist. (that's the meaning of the sentence you cited above).
 * The parties who concluded the treaty are listed in the text. Would you please read it? Squash Racket (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, the Kingdom of Hungary was founded in 1000, Austria-Hungary was a temporary state lasting only for a few decades. Just some clarification. Squash Racket (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Austria-Hungary stoped to exist in 1918. The treaty was signed between Hungary and the entente in 1920.Baxter9 (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So Hungary was a separated country. Read th Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919) article to find out what happened with Austria...Baxter9 (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is the point, article of Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye is a good neutral point of view, article about Trianon is clearly onesided (!!!), focus at lost a lot of territorry and people, but Austria-Hungary 1916 and Hungary 1921 were two absolute different counrties, it is not successor, not heritage, de jure and in reality it is a complete new startup. And Trianon is still in force and valid. In article abot Saint Germain is this balancing act successful, this article it is a clear falsification of history and the trample at Neutral point of view. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... anything specific? I just checked the article on the other treaty and in fact it DOES list Austria's losses in great detail. Squash Racket (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * yes tree lines, in this article we have 200 lines right-wing radicalism. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

To me that seems more than three lines: Austria was reduced not only by the loss of crownlands incorporated into the states of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia (the “successor states”) but by the cession of the regions Istria and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, city of Trieste, and several Dalmatian islands to Italy and the cession of Bukovina to Romania. In total, it lost land to Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, Romania, and Italy. Burgenland, then a part of Hungary, was awarded to Austria.

The Austrian Army was limited to a force of 30,000 volunteers. There were numerous provisions dealing with Danubian navigation, the transfer of railways, and other details involved in the breakup of a great empire into several small independent states. (...)

The vast reduction of population, territory and resources of the new Austria relative to the old empire wreaked havoc on the economy of the old nation, most notably in Vienna, an imperial capital without an empire to support it. The forcible incorporation of the German-speaking population of the border territories of the Sudetenland into the state of Czechoslovakia, created enormous problems - which became one of the causes of World War II.

The other article is a bit too short for such comparisons, don't you think? Squash Racket (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"but Austria-Hungary 1916 and Hungary 1921 were two absolute different counrties, it is not successor, not heritage"

WHAT???? YES IT IS A DIRECT SUCCESSOR! Austria-Hungary consisted of two souverain kingdoms the Austrian empire and the Hungarian Kingdom. Hungary was always a separated part of the Habsburg Empire, not like the territory of the Czeh Republic. Habsburg emperors were Hungarian kings as well, they HAD TO BE CROWNED to the King of Hungary. After the treaty of Trianon until 1946 Hungary's stateform was kingdom, the direct successor of the Hungarian Kingdom which was member of the dualistic Austria-Hungary. The last Habsbur emperor/king Charles the IV tried many times to get his Hungarian trone back, even because he was Hungarian king who was crowned in 1916. One queston to you: the Czeh state was dissolved in 1618-1620 after the 30 years war and it was (re)created in 1918 (not on the same territories). So do you czeh people feel that heritage as your own? (According to you, you should not) What do you think about Great Moravia? Hm? Is the Czeh state of direct successor of Czechoslovakia? Same territory? Heritage?Baxter9 (talk) 17:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And what is not neutral for you? That it tells the reader that Hungary lost 75% of it's territory? What is wrong with that? That is a fact, nothing else.Baxter9 (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

no, hungary of 1921 is a complete new sturtups, hungary did signed trianon, and that say explicit: Whereas the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy has now ceased to exist, and has been replaced in Hungary (border Hungary 1921) by a national Hungarian Government, Trianon is valid, all another is withcraft, right-wing radicalism, clear falsification of history and the trample at Neutral point of view. Trianon is today and tomorrow (in 100 years?) a valid agreement. --Nina.Charousek (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for your "problems" with the article: what is "withcraft, right-wing radicalism, clear falsification of history", show sentences, sections. And who said it is not valid?? Baxter9 (talk) 18:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia
I am tired of this.... Hungary has not lost Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia because this kingdom has never been part of Hungary. We are having very interesting double standard in this article. First we are having statement:

"The Hungarian government terminated the personal union with Austria on 31 October 1918,...", then we are having statement that Kingdom of Hungary has lost Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. First I do no see logic in statement that 1 kingdom has lost another kingdom then we are having double standard because The Croatian government has terminated the personal union with Hungary on 29 October.

I can even find like evidence Croatian parliament declaration with which personal union with Hungary has ended.--Rjecina (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * After a quick search I've found these in the 1911 Britannica article:
 * "CROATIA-SLAVONIA (Serbo-Croatian Hrvatska i Slavonija; Hung. Horvát-Szlavonország; Ger. Kroatien und Slawonien), a kingdom of the Hungarian monarchy;"
 * "The city and territories of Fiume, the sole important harbour on this coast, are included in Hungary proper, and controlled by the Budapest government."
 * "By the fundamental law of the 21st of December 1867 Austria-Hungary was divided, for purposes of internal government, into Cisleithania, or the Austrian empire, and Transleithania, or the kingdoms of Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia. In theory the viceroy, or ban of CroatiaSlavonia is nominated by the crown, and enjoys almost unlimited authority over local affairs; in practice the consent of the crown is purely formal, and the ban is appointed by the Hungarian premier, who can dismiss him at any moment. The provincial government is subject to the ban, and comprises three ministries - the interior, justice, and religion and education, - for whose working the ban is responsible to the Hungarian premier(...)"
 * I don't know too much about this subject, so it would be helpful if you would provide reliable references for what you want to add in the article. Squash Racket (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Catholic Encyclopedia about Croatia and Hungary
 * On 29.October 1918 Croatian parliament has voted to terminate union with Hungary (history of Croatian parliament, on parliament web site and on Croatian language)
 * Articles Pacta conventa (Croatia) and Croatia in personal union with Hungary
 * If you look Austro-Hungary census 1910, 1900 .... you will see that census data of Croatia-Slavonia are separated from data for Hungary.
 * Hungary parliament of end October, November has accepted termination of union, but there has been short Croatia-Hungary war for Međimurje (Slavko Kvaternik) and this is has been only Croatia-Hungary problem of this time period.--Rjecina (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't mention 1918 and I don't speak Croatian. Feel free to change the article, but please use neutral, English sources if possible. Squash Racket (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Copying here Rjecina's message from my talk page:"Hear is text of Nagodba. In 1918 Croatia has abolished this agreement--Rjecina (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)"
 * Squash Racket (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

kingdom Hungary proper has 108,982 sq. m. and Croatia-Slavonia 16,420 sq. m Hungary in Britannica 1911


 * Lands of St. Stephen= Kingdom of Hungary = Hungarian proper + Croatia-Slavonia principality = one state
 * "HUNGARY (Hungarian Magyarorszag), a country in the south-eastern pertion of central Europe, bounded E. by Austria (Bukovina) and Rumania; S. by Rumania, Servia, Bosnia and Austria (Dalmatia); W. by Austria (Istria, Carniola, Styria and Lower Austria); and N. by Austria (Moravia, Silesia and Galicia). It has an area of 125,402 sq. m. (=325,111km2), being thus about 4000 sq. m. larger than Great Britain and Ireland."
 * "Geography And Statistics The kingdom of Hungary (Magyarbiradolorn) is one of the two states which constitute the monarchy of Austria-Hungary, and occupies 51.8% of the total area of the monarchy. Hungary, unlike Austria, presents a remarkable geographical unity. It is almost exclusively continental, having only a short extent of seaboard on the Adriatic (a little less than loo m.). Its land-frontiers are for the most part well defined by natural boundaries: on the N.W., N., E. and S.E. the Carpathian mountains; on the S. the Danube, Save and Unna. On the W. they are not so clearly marked, being formed partly by low ranges of mountains and partly by the rivers March and Leitha. From the last-mentioned river are derived the terms Cisleithania and Transleithania, applied to Austria and Hungary respectively."--Bizso (talk) 20:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

CROATIA-SLAVONIA, a kingdom of the Hungarian monarchy; bounded on the N. by Carniola, Styria and Hungary proper; E. by Hungary and Servia

My point is that Croatia is part of Realm of the Crown of St Stephen, but not Hungary. Map of hungarian 1910 census --Rjecina (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

disgrace for en.wp
this article is a disgrace for english wp, all is reduced to borders, but this is only a part of set of problems, I looked for some another wp's and they have not excellent, but better article, hu.wp too

I hope for (wrong no marked cards by me):
 * prehistory of treaty
 * the way, the story - parts of monarchy are members of winning allied coalition
 * is possible, that hungary and austria lost propaganda battles and propaganda war?
 * desciption of treaty
 * some backround information
 * comparison to another treaties in pariser conference
 * is this all happened because brutal hungarisation politik in hungarian part of Austria-hungary 1867-1918,
 * was austria-hungary realay a prison for some nations
 * discription of negatiaton and signing
 * behaviour of paris, prague, belgrad, moscow, berlin, washington, warsaw, roma, vienna --Nina.Charousek (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a free encyclopedia, so feel free to improve the article with sourced academic, NPOV informations.Baxter9 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

dispute
I checked the history of this page. Good luck fighting over the same edits for the next 10 years lol. This distupe will never end. I leave the fighting to the more national minded people. Cheers to the EU! we'll all meet up there, anyway. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizso (talk • contribs) 02:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

References?
Gelardi, Julia. Born to Rule: Granddaughters of Victoria, Queens of Europe This book is cited in the text. I checked and it is a biography on the British Royal family that has some offsprings in continental Europe. I don`t entirely understand how this is relevant to this topic but the citation is clearly insufficient as it does not list any pages!? Also, the text referenced to this book, is that the opinion of the author or a character in the book? This should be clarified.--Bizso (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ambrosio Thomas: Preventing Hungarian Irredentism through Western Integration  The 2nd sentence of the source goes like this: This is wrong as Hungary lost more than two-third of its historic territory. Now, I don't want to jump to conclusions too soon, but a source that has a factual error in the 2nd sentence might not totally qualify as reliable?! --Bizso (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Dear Biszo, thank you letting me know this apparent inconsistency. The idea underlined there is, however, that the Hungarian revisionism was still a source of regional instability after the cold war ended.
 * Consequently, the new Hungarian state lost nearly one-third of its historic territory and an equal percentage of its Magyar population.1

Now, about the territory lost by Hungary it depends, I think, how you take in account the new Hungarian state territory: do you count in the Croatian territory, Transylvania etc? Ambrosio said something about Hungary's historic territory and if you look for the other reference I added there you can see what historic teritory is considered by the experts in this matters (see also Nationalism and Territory: Constructing Group Identity in Southeastern Europe. p. 67-109. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-7TgkO8utHIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Nationalism+and+Territory:+Constructing+Group+Identity+in+Southeastern+Europe.)

From strictly legal point of view, one might argue (again) that the new Hungarian state did not lose anything because, following the disintegration of Austro-Hungary, the new borders were only temporary until the Treaty of Trianon confirmed them. If one takes in consideration the internal Austro-Hungarian borders, then one might get a higher figure http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_nowiki.pngbut using, perhaps, a disputable argument.

These were my thoughts and talking about Thomas Ambrosio, I am confident that he knows these facts better than any wikipidian that, ever, bothered to discuss about these subjects. Me and you including. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tziganul (talk • contribs) 15:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not necessarliy so that you must take everything granted that is written in a research paper. It is quite common that two texts assert contradictonary facts and claim that they are right and the other is wrong. It is useful to have a critical eye on whatever you read and you should also challenge it to some extent.
 * In your 2nd reference (p.73) the author refers to the "Kingdom of Hungary" as historic Hungary. After that, he goes on to list core, semi-core, and peripherial areas of the Kingdom of Hungary. --Bizso (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's get it short. Ambrosio was talking about Hungarian historic territory. It is obvious not only his interpretation, that this territory did not include the whole Kingdom of Hungary, part of Austro-Hungary. Please remove the question marks from an accademic level reference.
 * Prior to 1920, there was no "post-Trianon Hungary". The Kingdom of Hungary had existed for more than nine centuries, and covered more or less the same area. If you put it in perspective, out of the 1009 year existence of Hungary, a 920-year virutally continuous period can surely be referred to as historic. In Austria-Hungary, the Kingdom of Hungary was a seperate entity. Before that, it was ruled by the Hapsburgs. The only thing that can be debated is whether Croatia-Slavonia had been part of core Hungary or not. But even if you do not count Croatia-Slavonia, Hungary still lost more than half of its territory, so the factual error in your source still stands. Historically speaking, the concept of the entire Kingdom of Hungary is meant by all means, however. This is also confirmed in your 2nd source as well as in Encyclopedia Britannica...
 * By the terms of the treaty, Hungary was shorn of at least two-thirds of its former territory and two-thirds of its inhabitants. - Encyclopedia Britannica 2009
 * Strictly accoding to this descripton, there is another factual error in the sentence, but because the author says lost an equal percentage of its Magyar population, this is right as one-third of ethnic Hungarians lived in the annexed territories as opposed to two-third of the population of the Kingdom of Hungary. --Bizso (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

This is the source that cites the census data
 * In Transylvania (Romania): 2,829,454 Romanians (53.8%) and 2,428,013 others (mostly Hungarians and Germans). The 1919 and 1920 Transylvanian censuses indicate a greater percentage of Romanians (57.1%/57.3%) and a smaller Hungarian minority (26.5%/25.5%)

I checked it, and there has been a clear manipulation of data... The figures citing the 1910 census is correct but data for the 1919/20 census is partially wrong. The percantage of Romanians was 57.0% and Hungarians was 25.9% in 1880. Not 1920/1919. For 1919/1920 the percentages can be calculated as follows:
 * Population of Transylvania(1910): 5,259,918
 * Number of Hungarians(1910): 0.259 * 5,259,918 = 1 362 319
 * Number of Romanians(1910): 0.539 * 5,259,918 = 2 835 096
 * Number of Hungarians(1919): 1 362 319 * 131.0 / 157.2 = 1 135 266
 * Number of Romanians(1919): 2 835 096 * 119.8 / 113.3 = 2 997 745
 * Population of Transylvania(1919): 5,208,345
 * Population of Transylvania(1920): 5,114,214
 * Number of Hungarians(1920): 1 362 319 * 124.1 / 157.2 = 1 075 470
 * Number of Romanians(1920): 2 835 096 * 117.5 / 113.3 = 2 940 192
 * Percentage of Hungarians(1919): 1 075 470/5,208,345= 20.6%
 * Percentage of Romanians(1919): 2 997 745/5,208,345= 57.6%
 * Percentage of Hungarians(1920): 1 075 470/5,114,214= 21.0%
 * Percentage of Romanians(1920): 2 940 192/5,114,214= 57.5%
 * Percentage of Hungarians(1910): 31.6%
 * Percentage of Romanians(1910): 53.8%


 * Number of Hungarians(1930): 1 447 900
 * Number of Romanians(1930): 3 196 800
 * Population of Transylvania(1930): 5,548,363
 * Percentage of Hungarians(1930): 1 447 900/5,548,363=26.1%
 * Percentage of Romanians(1930): 3 196 800/5,548,363=57.6%

Please note that it is emphesized by the author of the source that census data for 1919 and 1920 is highly unreliable and the next internationally recognized census, after the one in 1910, was held in 1930. Therefore, I propose that we should omit the 1919/20 data and use solely the 1910 and 1930 figures.--Bizso (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Economic section added
--Bizso (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Romanian Army casualty rate during WWI
I have noticed some edits stating In reality, Romanian troops had incomparably less casualties than either Britain or France, That's quite a gross falsification being quite easy to demonstrate the lack of the judgement of the editor. The causality figure given (any reliability in http://www.kilidavid.com/History/World%20War%20I.htm ?) states for Romania 335,706 KIA and because, at that time, Romania had less than 8,000,0000 people it means that, actually, the causality rate is actually comparable if not higher than that sustained by France, for example. That's quite simple arithmetic and did not expect seeing it disputed.

Causality rate Romania = 333,707/8,000,000 = 0.042

Causality rate France = 1,375,800/40,000,000 =0.035 --Tziganul (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok but you should still provide reference to support that. --Bizso (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bizso, I expect YOU to take out from article the false information introduced there! please make note that it is clear malicious edit!--Tziganul (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please, describe what is false information and malicious edit in the article? --Bizso (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, you have change it :). Thanks Bizso.

Now I am curious to see why at pollitical consequences you have introduced this narrative ''Romania was promised Transylvania and territories to the east of river Tisza, provided that she attacked Austria-Hungary from south-east, where defense was scarce. However, after the Central Powers had noticed the millitary manouvre, the attempt was quickly choked off and Bucharest fell in the same year.'' It is clearly not the place to do it.--Tziganul (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This describes why the secret pact was arranged and what events led to the annexation of Transylvania to Romania. --Bizso (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, but if that's the case should we really mention the WWI events? Remember, we talk here about political consequences and not about the causes. So, let's focus at the consequences of the Treaty and, I think, you should take out from there your recent edits that do not refer, directly, to that.--Tziganul (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This WWI event has much relevance to this treaty so I don't see why it should be taken out. --Bizso (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't go into details at all, but still gives some useful insight to the reader on the direct circumstances of how Transylvania was gained by Romania; which is a political consequence of the treaty, by the way...--Bizso (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Little or no regard to the historical, cultural, ethnic, geographic, economic and strategic aspects
Historical aspects? Disputed (see for example the Origin of Romanians). Cultural and ethnic? Please elaborate. What about the geographic, economic, strategic aspects? Mentatus (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly think that if you have read the article at least once, then you know the answers to your questions but still just want to ask them for the sake of it...
 * Imo, some facets of the aspects mentioned are briefly:
 * historical: The territory functioned as one region/kingdom for several centuries. It went through bad and good times and its historical heritage was shared throughout the kingdom. This was a significant cohesive force that sticked the people together by contrast to the nationalistic separtist voices. It was proposed to let the people decide whether they wished to remain in the kingdom of hungary or join to neighbouring countries, but the idea of pesbicites was turned down by the Allies.
 * cultural: Similarly, the cultural heritage is also important and is prevalant in the region and there are a lot of cultural elements that were transported between the people that tighly lived mixed together. Besides, a large number of Hungarians (eg. Szekelys) were separated from the post-Trainon Hungary. There have been a lot of issues to this day about how freely the Hungarian minorities can practice their culture under foreign governance (use of mother tongue, schools/universities, internal goverment, representation, assimilation, etc... ).
 * ethnic: The new borders didn't follow ethnic lines and significant Hungarian minorities ended up in foreign territory. See the number of Hungarians living just outside the borders and the borders of Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946), which are more accurate from an ethnic point of view.
 * geographic: The Carphatian-basin is one geographic area and this made the layout of the former kingdom uniquely viable. This is an important factor when it comes to defensibility, security, prosperity, economy (eg. agriculture, pasture, tradin routes, etc.) and administration (eg. divisions, governance, infrastructure, etc.). Regions that had the same characteristics were cut in half basically (See Pannonian plain as an example), as a result of which formal core economic, administrative,..etc. areas shifted to periphery.
 * economic: The economy of the region simply collapsed. I think this is detailed enough in the economic consequences part of the article.
 * strategic: The Carphatian basin, where the Kingdom of Hungary existed, has many advantegous aspects. It is easy to defend, and the sea port, which gave sea access to the whole kingdom, is vital both to sea trading and naval millitary. Geostrategy or strategic geography also plays an important role in foreign policy and state economy. It is imperative that industries have access to strategic resources and strategic infrastructure (eg. railway, road map) so that states/nations are able to maintain themselves. The region lost access to the Mediterranean Sea and much of it became landlocked. The trading stopped and industries were left without resources/supple from the Sea and from other geographic areas of the formal kingdom. The railway network, an important millitary and economic inrastructure, was shaped in a concentric manner, and the borders split it up, rendering it useless for years.

These aspects are closely related to one another and one often implies the other. For instance, the geographic, economic and strategic aspects have much overlap... I could continue to give further examples but I think the point conveyed is pretty obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonio09 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Article copy-pasted from hunsor.se
Ok, it's bad enough the article is nearly copy-pasted from http://www.hunsor.se/trianon/treatyoftrianon1920.htm, but the fact that the source used is in fact a website about political activism for "national minorities" in neighboring countries really is pathetic. Politics and propaganda should not be passed up as history on wikipedia. At the very least change the wording on the sentences and use more than one source when writing over two pages of information. Romano-Dacis (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Any proof of that claim? Any proof whatsoever? Why not hunsor.se copy pasted from wikipedia? You do realize that many websites copy text from wikipedia sometimes parts sometimes full articles? Some minimal amount of proof would be nice. Which wikipedia user did this alleged copy paste by the way? Hobartimus (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, but it's the other way around. Websites copy Wikipedia and not vice versa.--Bizso (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bias
I have to say that seeing all this unbalance in this article, and pretty total disregard of the balanced, neutral, historical point of view, I am pretty tempted of tagging it.

Somebody has to realise that what was for Hungary a disaster was for the rest a blessing. I have never heard of the Slovakian, Croatian, Slovenian, Bosnian, Romanian or Serbian being sorry about Austro-Hungary dissolution.

The economic consequences, just as an example, that are listed there show only one side of the coin. Most of the new states economies did redress pretty quick from the mess that was WWI. That fact is pretty remarkable, actually, taking in account the huge economic and human losses caused by the WWI. But there is nothing written about that in this article. And yes, one must reckon that the economic unity of the empire was a reality. There was a dependency between different regions, but, unfortunately for Hungary, the really developed part was actually the Austrian side of the Empire. Therefore, there was not really many incentives for ANY of these imperial minorities, to continue a common political/economical project together with Hungary in any form or shape, I would say. This are my thoughts, however, and I would not mind to see some other opinion expressed about this matter

This is not, by any means, disrespect for Hungarian history or Hungarian people whatsoever. However, this article has to be balanced with the others points of view too and we (Slovenians, Croatians, Rutenians, Slovakians, Serbians, Romanians) shouldn't have to take a deep breath every time we read this article.

I am tempted to contribute to this article but not really ready to start an edit war, therefore tagging the article might be the only option left for now. Before to do that, I would like to gather as many inputs as possible, about how this article could be improved. Therefore, don't be shy and come, please, with your ideas about this subject.--Tziganul (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that seeing all this unbalance in this article, and pretty total disregard of the balanced, neutral, historical point of view, I am pretty tempted of tagging it.

Somebody has to realise that what was for Hungary a disaster was for the rest a blessing. I have never heard of the Slovakian, Croatian, Slovenian, Bosnian, Romanian or Serbian being sorry about Austro-Hungary dissolution.


 * Yes, and this is included in the article. It says that the treaty solved some of the issues but sparked new ones. It's also mentioned that these countries, nationals were beneficiaries of the treaty. Also, that they had the chance to unite with their nation-states or create their own, and that it was in view of the self-determination principle.--Bizso (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The economic consequences, just as an example, that are listed there show only one side of the coin. Most of the new states economies did redress pretty quick from the mess that was WWI. That fact is pretty remarkable, actually, taking in account the huge economic and human losses caused by the WWI. But there is nothing written about that in this article. And yes, one must reckon that the economic unity of the empire was a reality. There was a dependency between different regions, but, unfortunately for Hungary, the really developed part was actually the Austrian side of the Empire. Therefore, there was not really many incentives for ANY of these imperial minorities, to continue a common political/economical project together with Hungary in any form or shape, I would say. This are my thoughts, however, and I would not mind to see some other opinion expressed about this matter


 * You see that's the problem... that these are your thoughts. You don't have any references. You don't have any facts to support it. It's just your thoughts. Please list reliable references on the economic consequences of the treaty.
 * From an economic point of view, the effect of WWI is different from the mess that the dissolution of Austria-Hungary caused. These are two separate things.
 * Btw, do you know what's the point of the European Union now? It's in part an economic union. It works on breaking down all the economic barriers.. Why? Because research shows that protective economies develop much slower than open economies. This was the key point in Austria-Hungary,too.
 * The Kingdom of Hungary was less developed than the Austrian part. That's true. But it was catching up and was growing at rapid rate. The developemnt was a consequence of the economic unity and the specialization of regions among other things. The treaty was imposed on a purely political basis.
 * There was a dependency between different regions, but, unfortunately for Hungary, the really developed part was actually the Austrian side of the Empire. Therefore, there was not really many incentives for ANY of these imperial minorities
 * Your reasoning is flawed. You're saying that because the Austrian part was more developed, there was no incentive for the people of the Kingdom of Hungary to remain in the economic union. Would you say that today just because the West is more developed than the east, the Central European countries have no incentive to join the econmic and monetary union? On the contrary. Apart from this, there is no relation between the fact that one part of the empire was more developed, and that the Kingdom of Hungary and the economic areas where the imperial minorities lived were part of the economic union. The benfits of an economic union is irrespective as to how developed an area is. What's more, in this case the Austrian part virtually pulled the less developed eastern side along with it.--Bizso (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not, by any means, disrespect for Hungarian history or Hungarian people whatsoever. However, this article has to be balanced with the others points of view too and we (Slovenians, Croatians, Rutenians, Slovakians, Serbians, Romanians) shouldn't have to take a deep breath every time we read this article.


 * Do you know why the article is mainly about Hungary? Because the treaty had the largest effect on Hungary. And the controversial parts of the treaty concerned Hungary the most.
 * You don't have to take a deep breath when you read this article. It is about history, and facts. Sometimes histroy is not as pink and bright as people would like to see it. History has its dark moments ,too. I understand that the neighbouring countries were happy about the outcome of the treaty, as they were the beneficaries. However, this article discusses the aspects of the treaty. And the treaty had negative aspects, facts, too that put some matters in bad light now. The treaty of Versailles had also countless negative effects and many people say that it was an improperly composed treaty. Nonetheless, these are still facts. If you sweep these facts under the carpet, that's called censorship. In the soviet union people were not allowed to mention the defunct parts of the USSR. Why? Because it would have put the political leaders in bad light. The only difference on Wikipedia is that there is no controlled censorship, but groups of people operate as collective censorship. If they find something that doesn't conform to their ideology they change it to suit their views. But the problem is that they do so with no regard to history whatsoever. It is understandable that people would like to read things that appeal to them. However, when they act on these beliefs, often the last thing that matters are the historical facts themselves. So please, provide sourced references.--Bizso (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I am tempted to contribute to this article but not really ready to start an edit war, therefore tagging the article might be the only option left for now. Before to do that, I would like to gather as many inputs as possible, about how this article could be improved. Therefore, don't be shy and come, please, with your ideas about this subject.--Tziganul (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your best inputs are historical material, documents, figures and professional, reliable and exhaustive research publications that relate to this era. Please, feel free to expand the article, but I beg you that you use sourced references and not just write down what you think about the treaty. Wikipedia is not meant to be a personal blog or magazine...--Bizso (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Biszo, thanks for your comments but no thanks for butchering my initial edit. So in future, please, do not intercalate your answers, because it makes the initial point difficult to understand by the others. At the end of the day this IS NOT AN EMAIL.


 * Now, after the initial edit was recovered from edit history, I can only repeat my call for editors to come and propose alternatives, points of views verifiable, of course, supported by accessible bibliography, ideally in English.


 * BTW, I have noticed this sad tendency of making noise, or bullying other editors while it should be, now, the time for a civilised approach, trying first to get the consensus.--Tziganul (talk) 21:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One more thing I would like to add when speaking of neutrality in historical terms. I am of the opinion that neutrality means the we present all aspects of a historical event as they are and we do not attempt to make things look better or worse, by twisting facts, hiding them or making up new ones.


 * For example, the Holocaust in World War II is widely regarded as one of the most horrible events of the 20th century. What would you say if the Germans tagged that article for lacking a neutral point of view because it depicts the deeds of Germany as unapproved? The debate there is not about whether the Nazis eliminated the Jews or prayed for them. Neutrality doesn't mean that we should add an equal amount of good things in compensation to the bad ones so that the article as a whole looks "neutral" or "balanced". For instance, are we expected to write for every sentence something like "the Nazis killed 6 million Jews and by doing so they violated the fundamental right for life of these people, but they also reduced the overpopulation of the Earth"? (just made up one). I don't think so. It is not up to us to judge whether something was right or wrong; society collectively decides it. In my view, what the editors should do is present the sheer facts and circumstances without any subliminal or additional connotations that would distort them to appear in either less or more pleasing to some than they really are.


 * Similarly in this article, if all the relevant details are included and it comes out to 80% negative and 20% positive, then that's because that what the treaty was about. In the Holocaust example, it's more like 98% and 2% (we could say it was a product of a madman, and not of humanity). The concept of Neutrality is not intended to find a balance between negative and positve historical aspects (50%-50%), but rather it concerns whether the sheer events themselves (whether judged positively or negatively by people) are presented in a neutral fashion so that the reader is able to decide. (not trying to "adjust" the 80%-20% to either 95%-5% or 30%-70%; the 80%-20% figure is just an example and is a result of collective judgement.)
 * See: WP:MORALIZE, WP:SUBSTANTIATE, WP:PCK ... etc.--Bizso (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Bizso, it is strange to hear from you talking about neutrality. I asked for the others opinions, in order to get to a consensus about some important parts of this article. Your nonsense about comparing the Hungary with European Union or bringing in discussion the Holocoust is intresting, because it really shows how far some of contributors of this article can go. And actually is amusing, too. Have you brought in discussion USSR also? Hahaha :) Good night my friend.--Tziganul (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * First, I added one more thing that I felt important. I did not speak in the name of other editors. If you have problem reading my signature, I assure you that it was still me. Second, if you don't understand the examples I have come up with and what were the reasons for mentioning them, then that's your problem. I'm glad that you have found them amusing, though--Bizso (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In the article Romania half thousand years of Hungarian rule in Transylvania is mentioned in a half sentence, while the few-month vacation of Michael "the Brave" there has its own paragraph. And the article is not tagged. If you have some concerns based on neutral, English academic literature, then present them. BTW the treaty was quite poorly negotiated. The article doesn't mention that Romania and Slovakia while constantly referring to the ethnic composition of Hungary at the time, in 2009 as EU members fail to provide autonomy (not to speak of independence) to hundreds of thousands of ethnic Hungarians based on the very same reasoning. Squash Racket (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tziganul, I absolutely understand that you feel that there is a bias in the "wording" and the "presentation" of the article. But my best advice for you is to accept it. Wikipedia articles are divided into groups that are owned by groups of people (especially ones that concern nationality topics because nationalistic feelings are flourishing there). Don't attempt to change them, because you will get reverted sooner or later or what's even better, banned by an admin for no reason. Wikipedia will never be neutral. The reason is that everyone can edit it and some groups of people size control over certain articles. The Treaty of Trainon is owned by "Hungarian minded" editors so it will always be biased towards Hungarian feelings. Other Wikipedia editors that operate in groups respect this subtle fact and they don't want to edit this article for example. Nor will the Kingdom of Crotia be anything less than a totally independent autonomous kingdom. So my best advise again, is that you leave this article alone and find and read many alternate sources on the Treaty if you are interested. That's what I am going to do. Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot offer more. I hope that what I said wasn't too vague. See ya--Bizso (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Last time somebody reverted here proper, relevant citations from neutral, English references about four admins showed up. So I just repeat: if you have some concerns based on neutral, English academic literature, then please present them. Squash Racket (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Croatia-Slavonia
I've attempted to find some middle ground between the two positions currently being tossed back and forth. I've reinstated the full name (with link) to the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia in the first mention of the region, but I think it's unneccessary (in the interest of linguistic elegance and brevity if nothing else) to keep re-iterating the full name throughout the article--once it's been established in the early part of the article, the intelligent reader will easily be able to interpret later references to "Croatia-Slavonia" correctly. <font face="Edwardian Script ITC" size="3">K. Lásztocska talk 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

To be correct: Dalmatia was in Austrian part of Austria-Hungary and that way Croatia was administratively divided between Austria and Hungary. But, in other legal (!) way, Dalmatia was part of united Croatia (Triune Kingdom), under Hungarian Crown. Croatian-Hungarian Agreement proves that. That Agreement was a pact signed in 1868, that governed Croatia's political status in the Hungarian-ruled part of Austria-Hungary. So, we should use "Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia", not just "Croatia-Slavonia". Here's the text in Croatian Hrvatsko-ugarska nagodba §. 1. "Kraljevina Ugarska sjedinjena s Erdeljem i kraljevine Dalmacija, Hrvatska i Slavonija sačinjavaju jednu te istu državnu zajednicu " §. 2. "...Izvornik ove krunitbene zavjernice ima se uz madjarski sastavak i jezikom hrvatskim sastaviti i kraljevinam Dalmaciji, Hrvatskoj i Slavoniji izdati i u njemu cjelokupnost i zemaljski ustav kraljevinah Dalmacije, Hrvatske i Slavonije zajamčiti. Krunitbena zav ernica od 1867. ima se naknadno takodjer hrvatskim jezikom sastaviti i saboru kraljevinah Dalmacije, Hrvatske i Slavonije što prije poslati". §. 8. "...da ako bi se radilo oprodaji državne dalmtinsko-hrvatsko-slavonske nepokretne imovine u zemljah i šumah, o tom se i sabor kraljevinah Dalmacije, Hrvatske i Slavonije saslušati ima, pa da se bez njegove privole prodaja takova izvesti ne može ." Here's the text in Hungarian [http://www.1000ev.hu/index.php?a=3&param=5352 1868. évi XXX. törvénycikk. a Magyarország, s Horvát-, Szlavon és Dalmátországok közt fenforgott közjogi kérdések kiegyenlítése iránt létrejött egyezmény beczikkelyezéséről]. §. 1. "Magyarország s Horvát-, Szlavon- és Dalmátországok egy és ugyanazon állami közösséget képeznek, mind az Ő Felsége uralkodása alatt álló többi országok, mind más országok irányában." §. 2. "...E koronázási oklevél eredetije azonban, a magyar szöveg mellett horvát nyelven is szerkesztendő, Horvát-, Szlavon- és Dalmátországoknak is kiadandó, s abban Horvát-, Szlavon- és Dalmátországok integritása és országos alkotmánya is biztosítandó". §. 8. "... a horvát-szlavon-dalmát országgyülés is, a melynek beleegyezése nélkül eladás nem történhetik. S mindezen tárgyakra nézve a közös pénzügyi kormányzat, mely a közös országgyülésnek felelős magyar királyi pénzügyminister által gyakoroltatik, Horvát-, Szlavon- és Dalmátországokra is kiterjed." Sorry if I've pasted the wrong part of Hungarian text (my knowledge of Hungarian is very weak), but I hope you get the picture. I hope I've helped. Kubura (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)