Talk:Hungary

See here for recently archived discussions.
(More archived discussions can be reached via a similar link at the top of the page linked above.)

Software: Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

Horthy and the Hungarian Holocaust

On the the subject of the responsibility of the Horthy Regime for the events of the Hungarian Holocaust, there is an unpublished article on the topic posted at mypage.iu.edu/~jschelbl/responsibility/ (no http:// or www) titled:

"Responsibility and Accepting Responsibility: a Moral Assessment of the Relative Volition of Hungarian Domestic and Foreign Policy from Trianon to the Siege of Budapest 1919-1944."

In it sources are cited detailing the relative degrees of responsibility of the German, Hungarian, British and US governments for the Hungarian Holocaust which would be very relevant to the Wikipedia article on Hungary. 156.56.142.82 22:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Section

Added culture section. Any improvements welcome. --Charm Quark^?? 13:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please add something about pianist Gyorgy Sandor?

Wiki's link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gy%C3%B6rgy_S%C3%A1ndor

He was my great Uncle, and in my (somewhat biased) opinion one of Hungary's greatest cultural contributors.

Equally worthy of mention are his mentor, Bela Bartok:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9la_Bart%C3%B3k

And Zoltan Kodaly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zolt%C3%A1n_Kod%C3%A1ly

Thank you!

The Hungarian Economy

The economy section should be updated, in the light of the latest data: Hungary has the third biggest budget deficit compared to GDP in the whole world. Hungary had its foreign debts reclassified to a BBB+ (?) rating. Most foreign and domestic economist agree that substantial changes are needed in the way the government is managing the budget. The political sphere is ackowledging the problems: the government is preparing for a "reform" which the opposition (and most everyone else) is calling stringency. Most serious analysts also agree that the government claims of 2010 for Euro adoption are highly unrealistic and the most optimistic ones put the date to 2012-2013.

So this statement: "Hungarian sovereign debt was upgraded in 2000 to the second-highest rating among all the Central European transition economies." needs updating. "Inflation and unemployment – both priority concerns in 2001 – have declined substantially." - It seems that unemployment was on the rise in the last few years aswell, so this isn't a correct statement. A beautiful mind 14:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is correct you wrote. Zello 17:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Edit

I've put a bunch of new photos on the page, please don't delete them. If you want to discuss the changes please contact me [email protected]

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.67.6 (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed most of them. I'm fine with a few good photos, even with a gallery at the bottom if it is nicely put together, but I couldn't disregard the following problems:

Many of the images were not related to the section they were added to, or sometimes even the whole article.
They were placed in a way that the article became totally cluttered (maybe not with your browser + your skin + your screen resolution, but quite so with mine).
I hadn't noticed that, but it turns out there were also copyright problems (see recent edits by OrphanBot).

So please make sure what you're uploading is available under the appropriate licences and properly tagged; then place them in the article if they are relevant to the section in question and properly formatted (this one needs careful attention, especially when there are many images).

K issL 09:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian-Romanian war

There is no need to present the events of that war in such detail when there are an independent article about the History of Hungary, the Hungarian Soviet Repbulic etc. Other historical events are much more simplified in this article. Although the article shouldn't present such a misleading picture that Hungary was the agressor in this war. In the whole course of war Romania was the attacking party and before the events of July Romania wasn't willing to give back the Tiszántúl against the decree of the Peace Conference. Zello 14:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False. The reason for the details are due to your attmept to present Romania as the agresor part. 14:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greier (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that Romania was the agressor part continously from 1916. Obviously Romanians tried to get Hungarian territories not the opposite way. Zello 14:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a war, called WW2, which Hungary lost and Romania won. Hungary didn`t agree, and hence the war broke out. Romania had no reasons to start the war when it was the winner. Simple logic. 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greier (talk • contribs) 14:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romania didn't win WW1 - Romania was the ally of Austria-Hungary, betrayed the allience to get Transylvania, attacked Hungary, lost and signed the peace treaty. After Austria-Hungary collapsed Romania attacked again. That happened in 1918-19. July 20 was only a failed counter-attack by Hungarians, not the start of the war. Zello 15:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Crown Council from 1914 decided neutrality in war (due to the two antagonizing factions, sympathisising the Triple Alliance and the Entente), therefore technically Romania was not an ally of the Central Powers. However, after other discussions and agreements with the Entente powers during 1914-1916, Romania entered the war on the Entente's side in 1916 to gain the territorise with ethnic Romanian majority outside its borders. So I don't think the term "aggressor" is right, unless you decided that WWI was started by Entente.

Romania adhered to the Triple Alliance in 1883. --fz22 11:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bounds between Romania and the Triple Alliance members were given by a casus foederis. The Crown Council decided that the confict between Serbia and Austro-Hungary was not in within the boundaries of the casus foederis and decided neutrality (a decision accepted by Vienna and Berlin). Italy proceeded in a similar way. It was against the treaty to attack Austro-Hungary (Romania never declared war to Germany), but Romania and the Central Powers were not allied in WW1, and this was my objection/clarification to Zello's paragraph. Daizus 12:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on the field in 1917 Romania was victorious, the peace of Buftea and then Bucharest (1918) was signed mostly because of the Russian Revolution (1917) and the conflicts from Bessarabia. The unions during 1918 are caused by internal movements in those territories and not under a military occupation. Daizus 09:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Hiding" in comments...

Re [1] - I have hidden that sentence with a HTML comment because it's a mess. Hungary did one thing on April 15, another on July 20 - what? And, otherwise, even if it is clarified in the future, I think it just not something people will want to know when reading about Hungary in general. If we put these kind of details everywhere, the History section would make up 95% of the article (as I also made this clear in edit comments before). Would someone who agrees just remove that sentence, I don't want an edit war over such a ridiculous issue. K issL 22:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That section was inserted by User: Eliade who proved to be a sockpuppet of the permanently banned user, Bonaparte. I wrote a shorter version. Zello 23:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! K issL 09:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Population issues

What credible sources do you have in order to see the estimations of population of Hungary for 2006? Please don't blindly revert.--Noi s e t tes 14:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source is theHungarian Central Statistics Office. Census authority estimates have priority over other sources. --Polaron | Talk 14:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to semi-protect the article as the anonymous IP repeatedly change the numbers to the lower value. As if it's really such important to claim that there are less than 10 million hungarians. If the official census says it's more than we should believe them. andy 12:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henryk Sławik

Henryk Sławik also helped Hungarian Jews and died. Doesn't he deserve to be mentioned here? What about Hungarian protestants, not mentioned here? Xx236 07:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of Hungarians didn't lift one finger to help Jews. This is in stark contrast to some other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgrade Glendenning (talk • contribs) 00:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Self-drawn flags

I removed historical hungarian flags whose images were drawn by a wikipedian without explanation of their origin. I posted the request in User talk:Noisettes, but it is ignored:

"Sorry, I had to remove images of flags from Hungary article. Please provide the source of the design. As with any other information in wikipedia, the main rule is wikipedia:Verifiability. I am not saying that your drawings are wrong or useless, but flag is a serious thing and requires verification."

`'mikka (t) 22:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See User:Noisettes why your note is, and will continue to be, unanswered: that account is a sock of a permabanned user :) K issL 20:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False external links

The link to Chronological Survey: 2500 BC - 2004 AD seems to have been hijacked. I cannot find the original (presumably correct) link. The following is the current, false link:

http: //cityguide.budapestrooms.com/hungary/history1.htm History of Hungary – Chronological Survey: 2500 BC – AD 2004

Bardwell 10:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That link worked fine for me, but I removed it anyway, since it seemed to be commercial and at the same time offered very little information. Feel free to remove things like that yourself next time - it's a wiki after all :) K issL 14:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Protests -- Those Behind the Recent Problems in Hungary

"The troblemakers in Hungary are the Jews...they demoralize our country and they are the leaders of the revolutionary gang that is torturing Hungary." -- CARDINAL MINDSZENTY of Hungary, quoted in the B'nai B'rith Messenger, January 28th, 1949. --64.12.116.12 21:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whomever dug up this quote deserves great credit. Hungarian anti-Semitism is a serious problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.27.83 (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An alleged 1949 quote from Mindszenty has nothing to do with 2006 protests, or recent problems, or anything at all with today's Hungary, as clear as clear. Does anyone know a policy which allows removing such clear-cut abuse of a talk page? K issL 09:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics - Minorities

The "5% (other estimates up to 7%)" text contradicts what I found at Roma people. The latter states:

- "In the 2001 census only 190,000 people called themselves Roma, but sociological estimates give much higher numbers, about 5%-10% of the total population" - without references.

- Hungary: 190,046 (2001 census), 500,000 est. - citing the 2001 census as reference for the former, and [2] as reference for the latter (it would be nice to know where they did get that 500 000, by the way)

So I went on to find some info.

Unfortunately I didn't found any original paper about the 2001 census, only two table from this: [3] (Table 1 - National Minorities in Hungary in 1990 and Table 2 - Result of the 2001 Census), I grabbed some columns and calculated the percentages (I don't know where the 1990 estimates are from):

Minority	2001 census	Percentage	1990 estimates	Percentages
Total population	10,198,000	100%
Roma	190,046	1.86%	400,000 - 600,000	3.92% - 5.88%
German	62,233	0.61%	200,000 - 220,000	1.96% - 2.16%
Slovak	17,692	0.17%	100,000 - 110,000	0.98% - 1.08%
Croatian	15,620	0.15%	80,000 - 90,000	0.78% - 0.88%
Romanian	7,995	0.08%	25,000	0.25%
Ukrainian	5,070	0.05%	2,000	0.02%
Serbian	3,816	0.04%	5,000 - 10,000	0.05% - 0.10%
Slovenian	3,040	0.03%	5,000	0.05%
Polish	2,962	0.03%	10,000	0.10%
Greek	2,509	0.02%	4,000 - 4,500	0.04%
Bulgarian	1,358	0.01%	3,000 - 3,500	0.03%
Ruthenian (Ruthenian_language_(disambiguation) ?)	1,098	0.01%	6,000	0.06%
Armenian	620	0.01%	3,500 - 10,000	0.03% - 0.10%

Frigo 01:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one thing: can somebody check this reference: [4] (more properly, [5]) from the 'The Roma minority' section? It erroneously states the number of roma people as 189,984 according to the 2001 census. Frigo 01:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]