Talk:Kingdom of Hungary/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hungarian in the Encyclopedie française

Hungary in the Encyclopedie française

Here was I introducing an interesting piece of information about how the 18th century's leading scholars, gathered around the famous "encyclopédie française", edited by Diderot and d'Alembert between 1751 and 1777, thought of Hungarian as a slavic dialect, closely related to Czech, Polish and Russian and what happened?? Removed as not constructive...I must protest in the strongest possible terms...now how could this impression have been created that the language spoken in the Kingdom of Hungary is a slavic dialect related to Czech, Polish and Russian??? Not irrelevant to the 18th century, is it?...Maybe Diderot and d'Alembert thought of Slovakian and called it Hungarian...an entirely reasonable idea, given that between the battle of Mohacs (1526) and the peace treaty of Karlowitz (1699) the Kingdom of Hungary consisted of today's Slovakia and a narrow stripe of Croatia...check it out folks and think your own thoughts: diderot.alembert.free.fr, letter H...down to Hongrie:

"La langue hongroise est un dialecte de l'esclavonne, & par conséquent elle a quelque rapport avec les langues de Bohème, de Pologne & de Russie. La langue latine est aussi familière aux Hongrois. Enfin la domination impériale a rendu la langue allemande nécessaire à ce peuple ; c'est même une chose remarquable, que presque toutes les villes de Hongrie ont deux noms, l'un Hongrois, l'autre Allemand."

In English: "The Hungarian language is a slavic dialect & and is therefor related to the languages of Bohemia, Poland and Russia. The latin language is also familiar to the Hungarians. Finally, the domination by the Empire has made the German language a necessity for this people; it is remarquable that almost all the cities of Hungary have two names, a Hungarian one and and a German one." --Atlanticvalues (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't list past false and fringe theories in articles, because there are too many of those. These are irrelevant and confusing.

You also make your own conclusions from the text, which is original research and is not allowed here. What you say about Hungary's population during the 150 years is NOT true and is also NOT supported by the reference you cite. Squash Racket (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

....ah, but still, the question remains, my irritably editing friend. Have a look at historical maps and follow the frontier between the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary from the 16th to the beginning of the 18th century...compare it with the ethnic composition and you will see the light, predominantly Slovakian areas predominantly not occupied, predominantly Magyar areas predominantly occupied...I wouldn't call quoting from the encyclopédie française, published for free ON-LINE, original research by the way, you see, that knowledge has been around for 230 years....fringe theories...nice one, squash, nice one....ROFL --Atlanticvalues (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlanticvalues (talk • contribs)

Next time your language will be below the minimum (as above), you will be reported to administrators. Read also WP:CIV. That was your last warning.

Your original research remains original research. The false theory is still a false theory.

I've been editing here for more than a year, you just arrived. Probably you should show some respect or at least read and respect WP policies regarding civility, language. Probably the Slovak Wikipedia tolerates your behavior, the English will not. Squash Racket (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Slovk Wikipedia? Why Slovaki Wikipedia??? Now you've lost me completely..... --Atlanticvalues (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. What is the point of adding this information? Clearly the French authors were wrong and possibly didn't do their homework. This really is original research because there are conclusions being drawn from a primary source (the French encyclopedia). How do we know that it was written by "leading scholars" or that this was a prevailing opinion at the time? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Extended rationale

I've created this page not just on its own merit, but also to be able to disambiguate various links from older texts. EB1911 seems to be riddled with subtle references to "Hungary" and "Hungarian" when it actually means people or things part of the old Kingdom, not the present meaning. Juro has noted that in the second paragraph of the Magyars page, which is where Hungarians points to, and subsequently the disambiguation page Hungarian. --Shallot 16:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A good idea ...Juro 01:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page needs an account of how Croatia and other lands joined the kingdom. The page itself should be a part of a History of Hungary series. Zocky 18:59, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page concentrates on the term Kingdom of Hungary, other details are in the History of Hungary...Juro 21:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

edits by 81.183.189.66

I have done some minor corrections on this page, especially concerning the territory of the Royal Hungary and the Transylvanian Principality, the autonomous nature of the Royal Hungary within the Hapsburg Empire (it wasn't part of the Hereditary Lands, it had their own parliament, institutions and constitution on the contrary with Steiern or Bohemia after 1620) and the end of the monarchy in Hungary in 1946. Please don't delete it!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.183.189.66 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 31 July 2005.

All (or at least most of) your edits are just factually completely wrong (too much errors for me to make just correcting edits). I will delete them until you present a correct version (which however is not necessary because the current version is quite OK). Juro 18:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong? Western Transdanubia wasn't part of the Royal Hungary? What about Győr, Veszprém, Sopron, Zala, Moson and Vas County? The present-day Slovakia wasn't called Felvidék in Hungarian (together with present-day Carpatho-Ukraine)? The Principality of Transsylvania didn't comprise parts of eastern Hungary (Bihar, Arad etc)? The Royal Hungary wasn't autonomus in the frame of the H. Empire? The Republic of Hungary wasn't proclaimed in 1 February 1946? These are facts... - Zello

I made some changes about the territorial extent of the Royal Hungary and Princ. of Tr., the government of Hungary within the Empire and so on. Probably there won't be more misunderstandings between us. I deleted the expression "small attacks" concerning the Ottomans because the Kingdom of Hungary was the main frontline of the Turkish Empire and the Europe. Half of the country was destroyed during the 16th century - it was anything but small attacks... - Zello

The situation was much more complicated then you describe it. The borders changed permanently at that time due to constant fightings, e.g. Carpatho-Ukraine was sometimes part of Transylvania and sometimes part of Royal Hungary, sometimes it was divided etc. Therefore the original version is the only correct one, unless you make a table with all the border shifts (which is virtually impossible, I assume). Felvidék (actually felvidék) is not and has never been an official term (therefore there is no reason to use in the first place, otherwise it would be necessary to analogously delete "present-day" in front of Slovakia and add that the Slovaks called the Ottoman Hungary "Lower Lands" etc., for which I see no reason), in addition, the term referred to eastern Slovakia and surroundings at that time- because that was "upper" Hungary at that time (since the "lower" Hungary was western and central Slovakia and Burgenland).

As for the "autonomous": read the whole sentence, clearly "autonomous" does not fit into it (based on the logic of the sentence), in addition, "autonomous" always implies a kind of special arrangement on "autonomy" (which was not the case)and finally the sentence clearly describes the situation, I do not understand why you want to change it at all.

And... are you sure that Hungary was "occupied by the Entente and Romanian troops" at the time in question?? I have no time to check that, but I doubt that that was the case at that time...

Juro 00:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Juro, check out the Hungarian Soviet Republic. Actually, the occupation took place during most of 1919, mainly by the Romanian army, but French troops were involved as well. (You can also see a nice edit war going on there, in case you're interested why I have no time to do useful things.) KissL 10:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed only the territory parts, I think it's more or less correct now and I admit that it's much more correct than my firts version. As for the other parts I think we reached an agreament.

Border changes: yes, because of the constant wars with the Ottomans there were lots of changes among the borders (for example Eger, Kanizsa, Fülek/Filakovo etc) but the core territories were the same in the 16-17th centuries. You cannot neglect western Transdanubia and the others. As for Carpatho-Ukrain: the so called Seven Counties were connected to Transylvania two times (1621-29 and 1645-48) but this didn't mean a change in the state-borders. The counties were the personal holdings of Prince Bethlen Gábor and I. Rákóczy György.

The terminus Felvidék meant more than present-day Slovakia, it includes the northern counties of present-day Hungary and Carpatho-Ukrain. It's practical historical and geographical term and I used in brackets. We can use Alföld (Lowlands) too, none of them is anacronistic. - zello

I removed the last sentence from the lead paragraph – I find it redundant. On the one hand, the rest of the article explains the same thing more precisely, and on the other, I think it is pretty self-evident that a state could not exist without the slightest change in its borders throughout almost a thousand years.

Zello, I think Juro's formulation "and adjacent territories" describes the situation adequately, leaving room for exactly as much inaccuracy as there were changes. I'd refrain from describing things in more detail here; see Juro's comment above: "This page concentrates on the term Kingdom of Hungary, other details are in the History of Hungary." As for the term "Felvidék", as it is (to my knowledge) not used in contemporary documents, it has no interest for the English-speaking reader, therefore I'd leave that out too.

I advise you to log in when you're here, this way you get the messages on your talk page. I left you one.

KissL 11:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'm new here. We can leave out the term Felvidék, but we can't leave out western Transdanubia. It's absurd to mention the little stripe of Burgenland and leave out a rich counties with big cities, fortresses and so on. What's more: the English reader can think that the Royal Hungary doesn't have any territorial connection with present-day Hungary. It's simply not true because approximately half of the present-day territory were under Ottoman occupation, not the whole... - Zello

Your current version is OK with me. Until you get used to signing "~~~~", everyone here will know on first sight that you're new :) But come, I've been here myself for just a little more than a month. And it's nice to have you, as opposed to those newcomers whose edits are virtually indiscernible from vandalism. KissL 12:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I have done some corrections (e.g. Alföld is a very ambiguous term, even today) and I am not going to react to everything said above, but let me remark once more that the sitution was far more complicated, the borders shifted almost every year and large parts of present-day eastern Slovakia were part of Transylvania several times (that's what my atlases show; I am not going to check whether this coincides with the counties given to Transylvanian princes, because I do not consider that so important) so it is generally better to keep the description general, otherwise it would be necessarily misleading and wrong. Juro 19:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Juro, are you sure we need "However, some of these areas were not part of the Kingdom of Hungary in certain historical periods." in the lead? I removed it on purpose, and also explained why (a few paragraphs above). KissL 09:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The sentence does not stem from me, but I thought that since it is correct I see no reason for deleting it. It is not self-evident that a country does not include all its historical territories over the whole time of its existence, especially not for a reader who hardly knows where Hungary is situated in Europe nowadays (which is the majority of Americans, for example). But if you insist...Juro 15:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I changed the order of Transdanubia and Burgenland, because the Transdanubian parts of the Royal Hungary were larger and more important than Burgenland. And - anyway - I wrote the article about Transdanubia, so it's not an empty stub from that point :) Zello 00:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Name in Hungarian

An anonymous editor has added the name in Hungarian recently, but I fail to see the benefit for the reader. Any objections against removing it? KissL 08:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Latin and Hungarian were the official languages of the KoH (before/after 1844), so we should indicate these two names as is accustomed in the wikipedia. Zello 03:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Magyar language was official only during a fraction of the existance of KoH, connected with compression of other nationalities. Latin and German lanugages were of much higher importance, so the name in the magyar language should not be listed as first. milanmm 08:15, 14 September 2005

Multiethnic

1. How many people with Slavic name lived in the country? 2. Above what percent a Country is considered multiethnic, in the Middle age? 3. Ethnicity was not an issue until the the 19th century at all. 4. Why only KoH article contains in its first line this multiethnic atribute? Pls check KoEngland article ... Wasn't so much a multiethnic kingdom? or KoFrance?? 5. Someone in the Hungary's population section stated that there is no evidence on the country's ethnic composition up to 1780 ... and an estimation of 80-20%, for Magyars and nonMagyars is not a NPOV. So I've considered this fact applicable here too.--fz22 22:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think almost every important Kingdom in the Middle Ages was multiethnic by present standards. It's really strange to emphasise this only in the case of Hungary and I'm sure this is only a reflection of the more modern conflicts between Magyars and their neighbours. Zello 22:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

There was no kingdom, in which there were only 29% Magyar-"equivalents" in 1780 and 41 % in 1850 - that's the big difference. And in the 16th and 17th century the Magyar percentage was negligible, another big difference. Also, there is no question that the country was highly multiethnic in the Middle Ages, for the simple reason that it was only in the 10th century that the Magyars settled here (another difference compared to any western European kingdom). In sum, the attribute is just correct, whether it is mentioned elsewhere is actually not important. Secondly (to our "Hungarian animal" contributor :)))) ): ethnicity HAS BEEN A BIG ISSUE throughout human history, the problem did not arise in the the 19th century, that's a modern myth. Fully official (often solved by the king) purely ethnic quarrels and legal disputes are evidenced in Slovakia as early as in the 13th century (between the Slovaks and Germans; from the 16th century between Slovaks, Germans and Magyars), both in towns and in the Diet. Not only is not it true that they did not happen, ethnic problems were even very frequent. Earlier disputes are unknown only because documents have not been preserved. Nationalism and racism ("we" as opposed to the "different" others) are the most fundamental human properties, peculiar to all primitive societies, despite the fact that some people try to suggest the opposite today. Once there is one single difference of one group compared to another (and the linguistic difference between Magyars and the others is quite evident, not to mention other differences in the 10th century), nationalism begins. It is that simple. Juro 22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

To be more accurate the proper value is 39%, not 29 ... And yes the first reliable imperial census was held in 1780 ... but we know nothing about the antecedent 700 years (On the secong thoughts is just the opposite). Talking about Slovakia in the 13th century, is quite suggestive :)

That is acceptable we are in short supply in historical documents, but from the numbers of documents about Cumans or Romanians we can also draw a conclusion.--fz22 08:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I said that there are no documents about disputes, but there are, of course, other documents (in churches etc.) and archeological estimates, which you can find in any expert text. The problem seems to be, however, that the Magyar and Non-Magyar estimates differ considerably, and I am personally unable to decide on what criteria I should decide which estimates are correct. One of the most recent estimate on the number of Magyars that arrived in 896 I have read (with an explantion) says they were not more than 100 000 (the number of inhabitants of Great Moravia was about 300000 - if I remember well), you say it was 400 000. If this is not clear, then any other estimates for the High Middle ages are like a lotto game. By the way, by coincidence, yesterday I came across an article on the German wikipedia (de:Neugriechen-These) saying that acording to Italian researchers the Hungarians actually have more Slavic genes then Poles (60% vs. 50%). If it is true, then it is the genetic proof of multiethnicity. Juro 21:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Apart from the always disputed numbers, I agree that the KoH was always multiethnic. The real question is why it is so important a fact that we should mention it in the FIRST sentence, in the definition. It suggests that this is the only important feature of this state - and I think this problematic. As I know there isn't any example for the same in the Wikipedia neither in the case of historical or present-day states. For me it's no problem to mention multiethnicity somwhere in the first part of the article. Zello 17:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

OKJuro 21:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

For me it is absolutely OK now! Zello 00:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is extremelly important to mention it was multiethnic in the first sentence. It is obvious that Magyars do not want that so I think somebody that is not Hungarian (no Magyar, Slovak, Serbian ...) should decide. Milanmm 13:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow this logic of 'not-related judge' sounds really pathetic.Szlevi 19:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It sounds dumb. Virtually all kingdoms are multi-ethnic. I've been wasting my employer's time for months reading about history on this site, I don't recall a kingdom not being multi-ethnic, nor do I remember it being specifically mentioned.

POV

"Kingdom of Hungary" was Hungary, the Hungarian state of those times. As you can read on the map: "Magyarország" (country of the Magyars, founded by the Magyars, presentday Hungary is also "Magyarország" in Hungarian). Of course, it was bigger, it was not a republic but a kingdom, and it had minorities (less or more, depending on the given period, but always more then the presentday country). Having this separate article about Hungary before 1918 (19? 20?) reflects a clear Slovak/Romanian/Serbian POV, that holds that the Treaty of Trianon was not a partition of Hungary, but the creation of a "new" Hungarian state ("Hungarian Kingdom"??). The name of this "new" state, however, was the same as the old kingdom ("Magyar Királyság"). There's no separate article for Kingdom of France - it redirects you to France. The same should be applied here. Vay 13:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The Kingdom of France and modern France's borders are broadly similar. Is it POV to have separate articles for the Austrian Empire and for Austria? For the Ottoman Empire and for Turkey? For Yugoslavia and for Serbia and Montenegro? --Jfruh 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is POV per se but I oppose merging. The History of Hungary article contains the whole history of Hungary since 896. This Kingdom of Hungary article shows a different aspect as the second paragraph clearly states. The KoH means not the same for the Magyars and their neighbours. For us it is our country in the former centuries of history like the Kingdom of France for the French. For the neighbours it is a historical state which ceased to exist in 1920. This article is strongly connected with the idea of a multiethnic natio Hungarica so it's not totally anacronistic. POVs have been different since centuries so we should accept this as a historical fact. As for Jfruh your examples are bad - there is a much more stronger continuity in the case of Hungary. Zello 20:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, that merging wouldn't be a good idea after all: this "alternative" POV (well, at least compared to ours :) is to be here. But ours should be here as well, that's why I made this small remark. Vay 22:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture

This copyright-panic is really crazy. I think this map was drawn by the Hungarian cartographer Manó Kogutowicz who died in 1908. Probably his rights became out of date... Zello 20:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

If he died in 1908, then the map is public domain. Unfortunately, nobody has written that at the map page, the words "the copyright has expired" would have been enough I think. Juro 21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The picture is from the Révai Enyclopaedia so I'm almost sure that it is a Kogutowicz-map (I should write at least a stub about him, he was a really famous cartographer). But the whole wikipedia copyright-mania is absurd in a time when pictures freely circulating on the web. Zello 22:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not fully absurd, because theoretically some copyright holder could sue the wikipedia, which, unlike many dubious pages, is a clearly identifiable counterparty. Juro 22:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand this but the result is absurd: I'm not ready to read through a picture tutorial which seems longer and more difficult than the Corpus Iuris Civilis. Zello 00:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand that, a very pertinent comparison :))) ...The short version of the tutorial: either you made the picture yourself (and you write it below the picture) or the author is death for over 70(?) years (and you write it below the picture) or you have a permission of the author (and you write it below the picture)...Juro 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Uhoria

I would like to hear some reactions on the new term Uhoria, which should distinguish multinational (nations are equal) Uhoria (1000-1867) from Hungary as a part of Austria-Hungary (1867-1918), where Hungarians tried to denationalize all non-Hungarians and make pure Hungarian nation. I see a great difference between Uhoria and Hungary in the principles and bases of state and therefore I think word "Hungary" refering to Kingdom (1000-1867) in English is misused.

In Serbian language, name Ugarska (same as your Uhoria) is used for the Hungarian state between 1000 and 1918, and after 1918 the name is Mađarska. In English, it is Kingdom of Hungary for the state between 1000 and 1918 and simply Hungary for the state after 1918. PANONIAN (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

To put it simply: absurd and I hope never will be accepted. It is on the verge of simple vandalism Zello 23:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello, i am trying to distinguish Uhoria as a multiethnical Kingdom 1000-1867 from what is commonly mistaken as a one thing - Hungary. Kingdom of Hungary is a part of Austria-Hungary, where ethnic Hungarians tried to denationalise non-Hungarian nations. Therefore, it was broken into various states after WW1.

But what I am saying is that you have wrong years here. Term Uhoria cannot refer to 1000-1867 period, but to 1000-1918. That is main problem. PANONIAN (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The "main problem" is that no reliable international source call the KoH "Uhoria". It is simply a recent creation from the Slovak name Uhorsko Zello 23:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Zello, I agree with you, but I am only trying to explain that Uhorsko/Ugarska in Slovak and Serbian refer to 1000-1918 period, not to 1000-1867. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right, I think it is the dot on the "i" :) Zello 23:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I dont find it vandalism, because I dont want to destroy or damage anything. I want to refer, that the English word Hungary is misused. The English language name contemporary Magyarország Hungary. Unfortunately, they wrongly name the multiethnical kingdom in Middle Europe with the same name. Not only the name Uhorsko (Czech, Slovak)/Ugarska(Serbo-Croatian) means "By the mountain" (from Old Slavonic, before Old Magyars settled in Pannonia), its just wrongly understood, that there is the continuity from Kingdom of Uhoria to Hungary since 1867. I believe Kingdom of Uhoria (the translation from Slavonic languages into English) wont be confused with Hungary as a contemporary national state. It would be fair from all of the nations who lived togeter under St. Stephens crown in Uhoria. I used year 1867 to distinguish national tollerance before and national oppression afther, but I also wont disagree to name the Kingdom "Uhoria" until 1918 (with 2 periods concerning national tollerance between Hungarians and nn-Hungarians 1000-1867, 1897-1918). I think that the distinction between the Kingdom (Uhoria) on one side and Hungary (Magyarország) on the other side is the best way how to put in order relations between contemporary Hungarians and Slovaks, Rusyns, Serbs, Croats, Rumunians.

I believe most of inteligent non-Hungarians living in former Kingdom of Uhoria appreciate common history in this state. I personally accept Uhorian history as mine history, not the only Hungarian history. Although I respect Hungarians and have also Hungarian frinds, I must say, that naming the Stephens Kingdom "Hungary" is simply wrong and unfair, because it wasnt only Hungarians who lived there, but also Serbians, Croatians, Slovaks, Rusyns, Jews, Germans and so on - St. Stephens idea was multiethnic kingdom, not the one Hungary nation kingdom.

Wikipedia is not about personal historical conceptions. If English people call it the Kingdom of Hungary then you should accept it because this is the English wikipedia.Zello 00:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Ouch!!! :) Luckily naming a country is not a "custom-tailored service" ... Some other analogy: lets call medieval "Croatia" Totland/Tautland ... to distinguish from present day democratic Croatia ... funny? IMO Hungarians have nothing to do how Croatia is called in English historical terminology ...--fz22 05:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is cool. I know Slovaks call the Kingdom of Hungary this way, but as far as I know, this is the English Wikipedia. (?) --KIDB 07:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And please discuss things before you "Uhorize" the Stephen I of Hungary Article.--KIDB 08:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please notice the paragraph, hopefuly nobody will deete it, because I find it neutral. The original article contains his personal view about how Magyars approach the Kingdom of Hungary (it was primarily kingdom of Magyars), what may other readers find biased. Therefore, I add explanation, so please dont trash the whole thing. However, Wikipedia is open to editing. Thank you. The contemporary name Hungary (The Republic of Hungary) is generaly misused referring to the historic Kingdom of Hungary. The historic Kingdom of Hungary was built in Pannonia and surrounding Carpathians and consisted of various nations: Magyars, Slovaks, Rusyns, Croatians, Romanians, Germans, etc. During raids of Old Magyars/Hungarians (from Onogurians), the Great Moravian Empire consisted of Moravian Region, Principality of Nitra, Pannonia, Bohemia and Silesia. The eastern region was also called Uhory lands (from Old Slavonic "U Hory", what means by the mountains - Carpathians). Saint Stephen was the prince of Nitra Principality and in year 1000, he became a king of the whole kingdom - not only the king of nomad Magyars/Hungarians, but also the King of other nations, much more developed than Old Magyars/Hungarians in that time. It is said, that he preferred the company of Old Slavonic Christian knights rather than Old Magyar pagans. He insisted on not using Old Magyar language on his court and instead he preferred latin language as the unifying symbol of various Christian nations under his realm. For instance during long period of Ottoman expansion, the historic Kingdom of Hungary was situated on Slovakia, not Hungary and the Capital was Pressburg (recent Slovak capital Bratislava). Therefore, it is much more accurate to talk about historic Kingdom of Hungary until 1867 - when the Habsburg Austria-Hungary was created. The treat between the Emperor and Hungarian delegates started huge oppression of ethnic non-Magyars in the Kingdom of Hungary, which, as ethnical Magyar leaders thought was suppossed to be “purified” from ethnic non-Magyars and turned into one Magyar nation Hungary. Contemporary Hungarian Republic in English is the same as Magyarország in Magyar language. Using name “historic Kingdom of Hungary” and Latin geographic terms should distinguish multiethnic Latin-Christian basis kingdom from ethnically homogeneous Hungarian/Magyar Kingdom and Hunrarian/Magyar republic of 20th century.

What nation are we talking about? Slovakian nation, Rusyns, Romanians in 1000AD? Are you kidding?

Situated in "Slovakia" ? Old-Slavonic knights? ... ok I know the answer ... I have to read more history :)))--fz22 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

exuse me, I said all of he users are free to edit. This was my contribution and if you dont mind, I would like to have it there, because the wikipedia is open to editing. If you think there wasnt Slovak nation in 11th century, feel free to change it into Old Slavs (Slovaks were distinguished from Old Slavs exactly in the 11th century). I dont see the purpouse in trashing it all out. The article is not about Magyars see the history but how it was and other nations were also VERY IMPORTANT part of historical Kingdom of Hungary. If you want to glorify Magyars, do it on hu.wikipedia.org or anywhere else. If you want to write an article you dont want to be changed, put in your blog. WIKIPEDIA IS OPEN TO EDITING. I will work on it more and also put there links, so dont worry...just dont vandalise my work. Thanks

but you also should observe the rules: expose your thoughts, justify, and if there was no objections add them to the article. So I think your contribution should be reweritten because contains a lot of simplification, gross error ... Regards, --fz22 15:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

all right...i am new here, so i have probably messed up a little bit, but i hope this contribution is acceptable. definitely, improvements should be always made, but referring about topic common to lot of nations shouldnt be biased, but there should be also other views. I will put my new contributions into discussion first next time, but it seems to me there is no problem in deleting the new paragraph. thanks for your opinions.

The overview part is clearly a mess and contains a great deal of anti-Hungarian bias. First of all, during the Ottoman period, the so-called Royal Hungary consisted not only of today's Slovakia but also of Transdanubia and Croatia. The capital was indeed Pozsony but it had a much more diverse ethnic structure than today, so any overemphasis of the "Slovak" role here is clearly POV.

I don't see the point either ... this is my favourite: "Hungary was situated on recent Slovakia, not Hungary". What do you try to express through your comments as a whole?? --fz22 18:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

if you see something biased and untruthful, please edit the sentence, not the whole paragraph. otherwise, what you are doing can be called censorship of information you dont like to hear, but it is not my problem. there are no historic fictions and if so, correct them. thank you

I think that Slovaks should remain with their edits in Slovak history which encompasses about a little bit more than ten years, they should not mess with our millennial Hungarian history.

-- Now that's really a kind of "neutral" comment... waiting for some more jokes :)

Absurd claims

Ok, then I present why your paragraph is absolutely unacceptable. You are right that the Kingdom of Hungary was a multiethnic state but this is explained in the first sentence of the article. On the other hand the Magyar Királyság in 1920 was a legal successor of the Magyar Királyság (KoH) existed before even by the Treaty of Trianon. The situation is more obvious in 1867 when the consitutional laws of 1848 were restored with some modification. So there is a clear LEGAL continuity between the present Hungary and the state of István. Your attempt to cut this continuity is against the valid laws of Hungary, the WHOLE Hungarian historical literature and common sense. We are speaking about so basic facts and principles that no Hungarian will accept this text.

Examples for serious fatual mistakes and Ant-Hungarian bias: István as the Prince of Nitra???? Where did you find this bullshit?

Magyars were not a nomad people after they settled in the Pannonian Plain. They were half-nomad even before

Latin was the language of the church and state in medieval kingdoms, István only followed Western-Europen examples

Hont and Pázmány were German knights from Svabia according the medieval chronics (pl. Simon Kézai)

As others already said: Royal Hungary was not only on the territory of Slovakia, but Western-Transdanubia and present-day Northeast-Hungary

Pozsony-Pressburg was a German-speaking city until the 20th century. There was hardly any Slovak population in the 16-17th century there. (This statement is absolutelly incorrect. Milanmm 13:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC) )

Are you sure? There has always been significant slavic population in Bratislava. Show me demographics of this city from 16.century...(wosa)

I would suggest, if you are really interested, check three points:

1) check publication on regests published in Hungary (no torsion only translation of Latin text) e.g. Zsigmondkori Okleveltar 1416-17 Akademia publishing, go through all Pozsony/Pressburg related diplomas, and you find all are written in not Latin, Slovak or Hungarian, but German..

2) Town laws of Hungary (Buda law recently published in Szeged by Kristo -team Közepkorasz Mühely), written lately in early 16th century before the Turks. There are many paralels survived in Zips/Szepes/Sps.(?sorry not related languages skills in SK) like Käsemarkt, etc from the same 16th century. ALL ARE IN GERMAN why? because almost all towns in Hungary (apart Esztergom/Gran, the "mezövaros"-s - like Debrecen etc without full town privilages and the Dalmatian ones) were established by Germans or by Flandrians. (by no Hungarians or Slovaks or Vlachs)Hungarians settled into town later especially if it became a royal seat.

3) For status 1790-s you have a publication of Vali Andras recently published in Dunaszerdahely in reprint, who list all villages with late 18th century dwellers in all languages the inhabitants used (!impartially..) --Vargatamas (talk) 13:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

So there is hardly any sentence that I’d be able edit – the whole paragraph is agressive Ant-Hungarian propaganda. Zello 05:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Name issue

Well, about this name Uhoria made from Slovak name Uhorsko, it is interesting that English name Hungary in fact have same origin as Slovak name Uhorsko, thus name Hungary already is Uhoria. English language in fact does not have its own word for Magyarorszag/Mađarsko, but it use word for Uhorsko/Hungary instead. Fact is that these names (Hungary, Uhorsko, Ugarska), have origin in Latin language, while other names (Magyarorszag, Mađarsko, Mađarska) have origin in Hungarian. The English language have no its own word based on the Hungarian name variant. PANONIAN (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

There is one similar example in English - Germany for Deutschland. In Hungarian the situation is the same with Germany again (Németország) and Italy (Olaszország). Zello 19:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have missed a lot of fun here :))) Well, as far as Uhoria is concerned (allegedly derived from U hory :))) ), I must say I rarely hear such a nonsense, the user Ig... seems to be very "innovative"...But on the other hand, Zello, you are wrong as far as Hont and Poznan are concerned as well as far as St. Stephen is concerned. Juro 01:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The dispute whether Hunt-Pazman were slovaks ot not is a long standing. The same as the origin of Diveky family. Simon Kezei wrote: they were of Swabian origin ... I found this book on the net: Roszkowski, Jerzy M.: Rod Divékych - Węgrzy, czy Słowacy? = Historické štúdie 41. Bratislava, 2000. 151-161. p. --fz22 08:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from Hont and Pázmány, do you really think that Stephen was the Slovak Prince of Nitra??? I hope you don't! Zello 11:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I have not read carefully: prince of Nitra, of course, however not Slovak, of course.Juro 17:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Steinhubel offers some illuminating readings :)

- http://www.hhrf.org/kisebbsegkutatas/kk_2002_02/cikk.php?id=1161

- http://www.hhrf.org/kisebbsegkutatas/kk_2000_02/cikk.php?id=285 --fz22 12:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the author speaks about the "dukátus" ie. the semi-independent pricipality of the younger brother of the King in the early Árpádian age. The two centres of the principality were really Nyitra and Bihar. But this was a kind of division of power in the Árpád family, similarly that the Capeting kings of France gave territories to their brothers (Anjou, Burgundy etc). Zello 12:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Prior to and in the 19th century, the term Hungarian often referred to any inhabitant of this state, regardless of his or her ethnicity.

i suggest to replace inhabitant with noblemen. The term Hungarian Nation/Universis nobilis (Hungárus in Hungarian) and ethnicity is somehow mixed here ... You just said Juro "ethnicity HAS BEEN A BIG ISSUE throughout human history, the problem did not arise in the the 19th century, that's a modern myth. " and every historical record indicate a clear distinction between the subjects of the King ("Universis Saxonibus, Syculis et Olachis in partibus Transiluanis"). Eg a Romanian serf was never called Hungarian ...--fz22 06:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this sentence is important enough to be kept in the English Wikipedia. Inhabitants of Hungary were called in Hungarian: magyar, tót, oláh, rác, stb. How were these people called in English? I doubt people in England, or in America were too much concerned about the ethnic composition of Hungary. I would delete the sentence. --KIDB 06:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The term Hungarus really had wider meaning before appr. 1848 to denote all the inhabitants of Hungary regardless their ethincity. I don't think there is any problem with this sentence. Zello 21:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Werboczy (Tripartitum) the Hungarus is a latin speaking privileged person, subject of the Holy Crown regardless of ethnicity ... all inhabitant? nothing like that.

Other meaning of Hungarus: any student from the Hungarian Kingdom in western-european universities

Unquestionable these terms should not be mixed: Hungarus, Hungarus-consciousness (loyalty and patriotism above etnic origins), Hungarian (Political) Nation, Hungarian, Magyar. So using Hungarian without further explanations is a simplification and mislead the english-speaking readers --fz22 06:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In this case we are talking about Hungarus and not Hungarian. One sentence is too short to describe the real situation to foreigners reading this. And a full paragraph would be boring. --KIDB 06:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course Hungarus originally meant mostly the nobles because in the old KoH only the nobles constituted the Hungarian political nation (together with other smaller groups). Peasants regardless of their ethnicity had a subordinate role in this conception. Zello 22:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the sentence bellow until:

1. Juro bring us any documentaru evidence dated from the middle Age or later when a non-Magyar, Hungarian subject was refered as Hungarian in "English or any other language"--fz22 06:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

(You do not have to go to history: [1], see third was a Hungarian, Alajos Szokolyi. Milanmm 13:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC))

???What??? The country was called Hungary, therefore the inhabitants thereof were called Hungarians. How can you deny such an obvious thing - in Hungary, you are applying the term Magyar on exactly the same grounds to Slovaks etc. until today. And the same holded for German, English, French, even for Slovak in part, and the same holds even today, so it is you who has to provide evidence that it was NOT the case, because this is the normal case of how adjectives are created in the world (and this is obvious to any person using its brain, actually). Do you think that a text in the 19th century was saying: XY, the Slovako-Magyaro-Germano-Romano-Serbo-Ruthenian minister or what???Juro 15:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering what kind of new information wants to transmit this sentence? And why is so important? i can repeat myself: why this "pattern" is not inserted in every article about former kingdoms of Europe, just here in this article?!?! Why don't we add a sentence saying " Prior to and in the 19th century, the term Frenchmen/Romanian/Serbian often referred to any inhabitant of this state". Sure, every nobleman traveling around Europe was called Hungarian ... and so what?--fz22 18:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence just states a fact. The difference between France and KoH is above all, that KoH split into several modern states and normal foreigners do not realize that it was ALSO (not only) "usual" to call say present-day Slovaks Hungarians in the past (and it still usual today in Hungary, see Magyar Eletrajzi Lex. as an example). That is the information and it is very important. E.g. a certain percentage of Slovaks who emigrated to the USA around 1900 was registered as "Hungarians" there (the rest as Slovaks) due to lack of better information. Also, in the Austrian part of the monarchy, it was a rule to call all the "easteners" Ungarn, "of course", and actually it was not wrong at that time from a certain POV. Juro 19:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

this is why I've asked you to present here a document which confirm your POV ... BTW Habsburg, the inhabitants (even after 1867) of the AHM were considered austirans ;). USA immingration statistics: they also counted the ethnic division of immigrants from Hungary ...

Magyar Eletrazji lexikon: this is current not just for present day Hungary ... but this is not a reason to add such a sentence in every article.--fz22 20:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you deny that what the sentence says is wrong? - you cannot; and you yourself say above that it is correct. Have you understood what I have written above? I hope so? So what are we talking about? Don´t you want evidence from me for the fact that 1+1=2? There is nothing to add. The sentence is obviously correct per se (and the analogy with France is completely wrong, but the sentence would hold irrespective of what holds for France). In addition it could be proven by quotes, of course, but since this is such an elementary thing, open any relevant 19th text and do not be childish and ridiculous....And the Magyar Eletrajzi Lex. is very relevant because contains pure Slovaks classified as "Magyars" (i.e Hungarians) even today - actually that should be evidence enough. Juro 00:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying that the sentence is too obvious. Why don't we mention in the same time that the inhabitants of the former KoH consisted mostly of men and women plus a considerable number of children. ;)

Sure I know I know any analogy with the KoH is wrong.

there are many person in history whom are conseidered Magyar and eg Romanian in the same time, just think on Matthias Corvinus (considered to be one of the great Magyars but is also appear in the Romanian National Anthem) and if you ever read a Romanian book you should know that he was the biggest "Romanian King" :) --fz22 06:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the sentence in question formed a part of the discussion of the multiethnic nature of the Kingdom of Hungary. The Kingdom of France was built as a nation state (in fact one of the very first nation states in the world). This is the reason why this sentence is not included in France yet is in Kingdom of Hungary. I am sorry, but I do not see any reason why to "resolve" the ongoing dispute about one word (all inhabitants vs. privileged class) by deleting the whole sentence. In my opinion, both points of view (the kingdom as a predecessor of modern Hungary and as a multiethnic entity) should be mentioned. Tankred 18:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

First, in France more then half of the population did not speak french at the time of the French Revolution. Second, this isn't explain why sentences like: "Wallachian often referred to any inhabitant of Wallachia", or after 1878, and even today "Romanian often referred to any inhabitant of Romania" are not present in the dependent articles ... plus in Western-Europe the term Nation-state has a completetly different meaning ...--fz22 18:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the present version of the article (with the old sentence as well as the new paragraph included in the overview) is clear, well-balanced, and satisfactory. Tankred 18:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I still doubt this sentence is important to be included. On this basis, we could include in the Slovakia article that "foreigners unaware of the ethnic situation of this country, often use the term Slovakian referring to any inhabitant of this state, regardless of his or her ethnicity", or we could include a similar sentence in the France, Hungary, Romania or many other articles. I suggest to delete. --KIDB 08:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. We wrote our oppinions in more than 100 lines but we made no progress at all ;). --fz22 09:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary from 1000 to 1918?

As far as I know the Kingdom existed till the end of the 2nd world war. In 1918 the kingdom was abolished, but later it was restored. Why do you think that the pre 1918 kingdom and the post 1920 kingdom was two separate state?

I send you a joke, wich was actually a historical fact (it means, that this dialouge happened word-by-word in real life):

Dec. 12, 1940: László Bárdossy tells the US ambassador to Hungary, that Hungary declares war on the US. The next dialouge followed it:

• Ambassador: Hungary is a republic, right?
• L.B.: No, its a kingdom.
• A: So, you have a king?
• L.B: No, we have an admiral.
• A: So, you have a naval fleet.
• L.B.: No, because we don't have access to any sea.
• A: You have any proposals?
• L.B: Yes, we have.
• A: Against the US?
• L.B: No.
• A: Against England?
• L.B: No.
• A:Against Russia?
• L.B: No.
• A:Then against who?
• L.B: Against Romania
• A:So, you'll declare war on Romania also?
• L.B: No sir, we're allies.

It cleares a lot of stuff, from what is intresting here I've bolded. Hope you got it. --VinceB 00:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope you got this: After the collapse of Austria-Hungary, the Hungarian Democratic Republic was proclaimed. That even marked the end of the Kingdom of Hungary. The rulers of the republic were aware that Hungarian state will be punished for starting WWI, so they (rulers of Hungary) claimed that this republic is a NEW state that do not have continuity with the formed Kingdom to avoid this punishment. After the Treaty, when new Hungarian borders were defined, the rulers of Hungary changed story. Since they saw that story about discontinuity will not help them to achieve their political goals (we all know what were such goals), they now claimed that Hungarian state have continuity with the former Kingdom. They also named new coutry a kingdom, but it was a NEW kingdom created after the collapse of the old one. And guess what? It is already explained in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hungary#After_the_first_World_War PANONIAN (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Another section for clearing, thanks for pointing that. Does not collapsed, it was simply cut into parts, by the winners of the war (aka Antant). What goals? I don't know. --VinceB 05:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The above transcripted conversation was not between Bardossy and the US Ambassador to Hungary, but between Franklin Roosevelt and Cordell Hull, his Secretary of State. See The Hungarians, by Paul Lendvai, Princeton Univeristy Press, 2004. 66.108.4.183 04:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

History of Hungary template

The History of Hungary template is obviously something it is right to include in this article, since continuity or not, the KoH was a state founded by the Hungarians, and the only place where the Hungarians lived. Feel free to initiate a poll or an RfC if you think it is inappropriate (though I'm puzzled as to how it could be so), but removing it without a clear consensus is not something I can accept. KissL (don't forget to vote!) 12:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The History of Hungary has something to do with the KoH. The KoH was a state founded by the Hungarians, but there is no eveidence that they were Magyars. All the documents are in Latin. The KoH is the only place where also other people lived, even full nations. More than a half of the template has nothing to do with KoH: FLAG The Inter War Years Hungarian Soviet Republic Treaty of Trianon Hungary in World War 2 Vienna Awards Tripartite Pact Arrow Cross Party After WW2 Treaty of Paris Communist Hungary People's Republic of Hungary Hungarian Revolution Modern Hungary Republic of Hungary

It is there only to make an illusion that Hungary is continuing state after KoH what is definitelly not. Milanmm 12:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It has a dinamic contradiction in terms: No evidence, that hungarians were magyars. Also no evidence that any of your statements are true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.56.20.99 (talk • contribs)

So now it turns out the Magyars didn't even exist until about the 19th century? :) Funny. Maybe it's generally accepted in Slovakia, but it's not in Hungary. I suggest mention both opinions in the article (as there's already been attempts to do similar things), and leave the template in the article. An alternative solution: create a merged template that includes historical articles of all nations affected by the Kingdom of Hungary, a little like in Chinese historical articles. Peace, anybody? chery 13:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No need to deal with this, its pure and perfect sophism. --195.56.20.99 14:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

"More than half of the template has nothing to do with the KoH" - that's because it's the History of Hungary template which lists articles pertaining to the history of Hungary, in chronological order. Coincidentally, it appears on these (and afaik exactly these) articles. This is in no way a valid reason to remove it. Also, this is the first time I hear that "it is not for sure that the founders were Magyars" - what's your source? KissL (don't forget to vote!) 15:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The KoH was founded not long time after Magyars came to this region. It is obvious that at this time it was a mixture of several nations, and, as we know, at this time a nationality played no role. All documents are in Latin. Some sources claim the mother of the first king was Polish. etc. I can accept a general statement "KoH was a state founded by the Magyars", but not as an argument in these discussions. Milanmm 16:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll also replace {{totallydisputed}} with {{NPOV}}, since nobody has contested anything factual in the article. KissL (don't forget to vote!) 15:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, find me another page on Wikipedia, where the first thing listed is a panel with Contents of some other page. I find it completelly misleading. Milanmm 16:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The template doesn't list the contents of any other page, but rather contains links to a group of articles sharing some common point (in this particular case, the fact that they are relevant to the history of Hungary). There exist loads of similar templates – Template:History of Slovakia and Template:History of Vojvodina, which you have just tried to add, are perfect examples, but so are Template:Politics, Template:Islam, or Template:Communism sidebar, to pick a few at random. Wouldn't the correct solution to your problem be to change the top of the template to say "Part of the series on the history of Hungary" rather than just "History of Hungary"? KissL (don't forget to vote!) 17:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it is obvious what is a problem. The article has a tendency to emphasis the role of modern Hungary as a successor of the Kingdom of Hungary. Probably it is considered so in Hungary, but is completelly not acceptable in other successor states. The dissolution of the empire is stated in the treaty of Trianon. We all agree that any efforts to deny the treaty cannot be accepted. - Milanmm 17:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Having that said, how about a common, merged template for the history of the Carpathian Basil? chery 18:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

This article used to contain the "History of..." templates of all successor states (History of Hungary, History of Slovakia, History of Romania, etc.), but some editors argued that it was too much. I think it would be a good compromise to include all those templates in this article. No one will be able to argue that the article is biased after such a decision. But I certainly do not agree with deletion of the History of Hungary template. Tankred 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Individual vertical templates really should be too much for this article. Isn't an all-in-one construction possible? Although horizontally built versions could nicely fit at the end, like in the case of Ulysses S Grant, those are quite out of sight, and thus a little impractical. chery 18:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Dinamic (in fact perfect) contradiction

==Continuity issue==

Magyars tend to emphasise the continuity of the Hungarian state and consider the Kingdom of Hungary one phase of its historical development. The continuity is reflected in national symbols and holidays and in the official commemoration of the millennium of the Hungarian statehood in 2000. According to their point of view, the Kingdom of Hungary was primarily a country of the Hungarian people, not denying the presence and importance of other nationalities.

In contrast, according to the point of view of the other nationalities living on the territory of the former Kingdom of Hungary, such continuity does not exist because the Kingdom of Hungary was a common state of several peoples since its formation, and therefore it is different from modern Hungary, which is a nation state of the Magyars. In the Croatian, Serbian and Slovak languages, there are different names for modern Hungary and the Kingdom of Hungary.

There is a dinamic (in fact perfec) contradiction in terms between the "Continuity issue"'s oppose section, and statements on the Magyarization page about the same era. In fact, they say "A" in here and "B" there, but "A" is the perfect opposition of "B". And its rather an ethnic issue (a funny and sad number war between nationalist from both side)--195.56.20.99 13:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, this is an issue that Hungarians and others will never agree upon. I as a Hungarian see a continuity, NOT because only Magyars lived there (I recognize it was a multi-ethnic state, at a time when religious affiliation mattered a lot more than ethnic affiliation), BUT because Magyars founded the Kingdom of Hungary. Arpad was the leader of the Magyar tribes, Stephen the founded the kingdom as a member of the Arpad house. There are plenty of ancient sources mentioning the nomadic Magyars. Interestingly many Turks I know of look at Ataturk (the father of Turks) as the one who established their state. Yet, many people from the Balkans, mention Ottoman and Turk as if it were the exact same thing. Those same people, who see the ancestors of modern day Turks as the Ottoman aggressors, are the ones who refuse to recognize the continuity between the Hungarian nation state and the kingdom. Ultimately, it's a question of opinion, depending what ethnicity are you. What I'm asking though is don't be a hypocrite. Evaluate the differences between Hungary and similar cases, and act by a precedent where applicable. (I think the Ottoman Empire was similar in that it was a multinational state, bound together by Islam.) Wikipedia should be about facts, not opinions, so if none of us can reach a common ground (something which is almost impossible regarding the continuity question) than don't include it in the article.

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed

I put 'The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed' mark as I consider the article biased and partially incorrect. - Milanmm 14:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To KissL

Please, I asked you several times: without a reason, do not delete any content to a version what you think is correct. Maybe you are wrong.--195.56.224.220 13:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you are the one who wants to change a consensual status quo, you are required to provide explanation, not me.

Still, since you insist, here is a list of problems with the paragraph that you're trying to force into the article:

1. the spellings of the words "centures", "buts", "hungarians", "Hapsburgs";
2. ad nauseam repetitions of "again", "but", "abolished";
3. the expressions "one of the pride of", "last and for all";
4. the repeated removal of a paragraph which was consensual among Hungarian editors as well as editors from other successor states;
5. the addition of a paragraph which contains details that are irrelevant to the Kingdom of Hungary itself, and covered in the History of Hungary article.

And in case you were about to, please don't tell me I could go ahead and fix the spelling, grammar, and style problems, because per the last reason, there is no point to do so. Instead, maybe you could detail the advantages of having a paragraph like this. KissL (don't forget to vote!) 14:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not consider the current version of the article to be a status quo. Many important parts of it were changed just recently. I definitely support 195.56.224.220 to remove the 'Continuity issue' paragraph. Milanmm 01:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

To KissL:

• I didn't find that consensus you mentioned. On the other hand, I didn't find any kind of wiki-policy that a question/section/article can be discussed only once in life (on wikipedia).
• As I already said twice: The section is called overview, wich means áttekintés/összefoglalás in Hungarian. The section in its current form is not an overview, it's content (absolutely) does not match to it's title name.

To Milanmm:

1. yes, correct the spelling.
2. and? There are several other words repeating also. If you don't like it, change them to their synonyms.
3. and what's the problem with them?
4. wasn't consensual, I didn't found any consensus, and, as you can see above, it is disputed.

Both of you: Of course I insist you to write down your problems, becuse you insist to your versions strongly. --195.56.231.17 02:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Kissl in this issue. There is only one user (195.56.231.17) challenging the long-term consensus reached and maintained here. Since none of other frequent editors of this article have found his/her arguments convincing, I am somewhat unable to find any reason why we should change the well-written and neutral content of this article. Tankred 03:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Continuity issue revisited

The current version states that prevailing consesus in non-Magyar successor states is that there is no continuity between modern Hungary and KoH. That would be harsh and I would like to assure our Magyar coeditors and friends that it is not so. We - non-Magyar "Uhri" - just oppose Magyar exclusive continuity, which in our opinion is shared.

To be a bit emotional :

Not even many Slovaks know that the man who was by Magyars of his age considered the gravest danger to Hungarian statehood, Ľudevít Štúr, was in fact patriot of multietnical Hungrary. I was really moved to read his words, that "it is truly a respectable fact, Slovak nation in Hungarian fatherland" and "anywhere in this country you can see the monuments of our life".

I (being a northern Slovak, a real Carpathian :) ) am really proud of my Hungarian fatherland, of its saints, kings, nobles, burgers and common people. Not least because it managed to be really a ethnically tolerant state. I would like to envite everybody to northern Slovakia, to cities and castles in the mountains that resisted Turkish invasions, to the last strongholds of christian Hungary for long 200 years. There you can see "monuments of our life", and I really wonder who could deny any continuity of Magyars, Slovaks, Rumunians, Serbs, Croats and Germans, any peoples whose granfathers lived and died for our common Hungarian fatherland.

You may then ask why do we not live together. The answer is : since 1830's our ethnical identity had been so endangered that our grandfather chose live separately.

So I would like to change the "Continuity issue" accordingly--Rachotilko 13:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Very nice, thank you Milanmm 16:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Very nice indeed - highly evocative. I have just returned from a trip to northern Slovakia and I was charmed by the history. But. I do not see this kind of emotion will contribute to an objective and unbiased discussion. In purely objective terms Rachotilko's sentiments fit well into the second paragraph of the 'continuity issues' - which In fact -could- be further fleshed out by stating the successor state's emphasis on non-Magyar cultural elements, eg. the strong Slavic myth that has percolated since the 19th century.

The 'continuity issues' article is balanced and fair - one might wrangle about the fact that the first (and therefore major) paragraph is about (god-forbid) modern Hungarians. But to an English speaker this is more obvious than a lamp-post, and he equates the KoH with modern Hungary as a matter of course.

It is quite reasonable to believe that the most important ethnic element in setting up the KoH -were- Magyars. It suffices a quick glance at medieval texts on the origins of the KoH (Gesta Hungarorum, Dubnicza Chronicle, Smon de Keza, etc etc) that the Hungarians prided themselves (almost inordinately) of their hot-blooded warrior origins - and even if 'foreign' magnates helped them in their efforts (eg. of course, Hont and Poznan - incidentally they -are- believed to be Slavic -)this reality was covered up already in the 13th century to perpetuate the sweet legent of the pure tribes of Hungary. Latin was used as a matter of course, especially since (just like with Central European lands now) the new kingdom had to appear a part of the Christian West - and so therefore the prevalence of ultra-Christian diatribes in the above-mentioned texts.

I hope this helps a little - I am a Slovak myself, though my family were Hungarians for a couple of centuries, and so I am not biased in favour of any particular nation. I simply think that English-speaking readers should get an objective view of the KoH - and by objective I mean the generally agreed stance of top current historians and, naturally, the historical documents themselves.

--Levomir 17:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask you to correct the formatting of your paragraphs above, so that the text becomes more comprehensible. Second, I would like to ask you to rephrase it a bit, so that your point is clearer. Maybe my comprehension of sophisticated written English is poor but I didn't get clear picture of your position.

My most important objection against your objection is that you don't distinguish my edit of the article and my discussion paragraph above. The purpose of the "continuity issue" was not to bring the most accurate and neutral judgement of the continuity issue, but to document the prevalent views in modern Hungary and other successor states.

On the other hand, my edit here in the discussion was emotional (and expressed my personal point of view on continuity issue), since whole discussion here is emotional. Possibly my message to Hungarian wikipedians (which I intended to be a very peaceful and reconciliating) was not appropriate here on Wikipedia, but much of the discussion here is inappropriately emotional. And I am rather inappropriately reconciliatory than controversial.

I would also like to remind you that there is no generally agreed stance of top historians on the issue, since unfortunatelly both Magyar and non-Magyar historiography is plagued by conformance to nationalist demands of respective cultures. The best we can provide to English-speaking readers is to present those biased views. But I am insisting on presenting both of them.

Anyway, the name of the document you wrote, "Dubnicza Chronicle" (that supposedly proves that my point of view is Slavic myth) is ironically so terribly Slavic sounding (compare Russian "Dubna", Bulgarian "Dubnitsa" for example). However, I agree with you that the non-Magyar nobility gradually identified itself with Magyar culture throughout the centuries (but that did not happen in case of common people making the vast majority of the population).--Rachotilko 18:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Your article was understood, and apologies are in order. One - formatting. Believe me, I did my best to put that sentence in order but something went wrong. Two - your view explicated the contemporary situation in central-europe, around which the whole of cultural and historiographical life revolves. As such it is invaluable to the understanding of views of current eminent historians as well as the public at large, and therefore it was quite wrong of me to criticise such an openly subjective (yet illuminating) angle.

The meat of my last article was not a reply to you, but to an earlier article suggesting that Magyars were not at the centre and the major force in the creation of the Hungarian state - and instead of simply hurling sweeping generalisations across the borders, I wished to add some sources to the debate. But of course they are generalisations also.

Which leads me to the Dubnicza Chronicle, and as it is one of my favourite tracts I cannot resist but give a little information. The name is indeed very Slavic, and is after the Slovak town Dubnica nad Vahom. However the reason for this name is that the manuscript belonged to the library of Counts Illeshazy on their Dubnica estate. The chronicle is from the mid-14th century, from the reign of Louis I, though the book itself was made at Matthias Corvinus' court in the 1480s.

As a further point of interest, there were signs of non-Magyar ethnicity amongst prominent nobles till the 18th century, amongst families thought to be pure Magyar. And so wills, decrees and various property documents were written in SLovak by members of families such as the Revay and the Szent-Ivanyi. --80.176.91.55 09:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I am really happy to read your reply. There was no need for apology, since I should have myself stated more clearly that I am fully aware of how subjective my "exhortation" was. I would have probably prevented the misunderstanding.

Regarding the generalizations and various biases: I am convinced that every sound historian agrees with the fact that Magyars were the initiatiors of the existence of KoH as well as a major ethnicity in Hungary. However this doesn't contradict the multiethnical character of the Kingdom and sharedness of the Hungarian heritage.

But now we are talking about one interesting point: the ethnicity with respect to the stratification of Hungarian society. To state it simply: there were many poor peasants from all ethnical backgrounds, Magyars, Romanians, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, Germans. Among the burgers, the Germans were prevalent. The substantial part of nobility were Magyars, and non-Magyar nobles were inclined to identify themselves with the symbolism of founding Arpad dynasty, including their ethnicity. The royal superstratum of the society was originaly Magyar (Arpads), later Czech, Polish, German, etc ....

I don't think we should base our heritage claims on ethnicity of the least numerous social strata. How many of millions of contemporary Magyars, Slovaks, Vallachs, Serbs, Croats have royal or at least upper noble ancestors ?

References on "creating history"?

Since nobody who reverted these changes gave a justification, let me mention that I checked all three references and only one (the PDF) seems to talk about such a point. Aside from its occasionally poor English, it's an interesting paper, but does not draw the conclusion that "Slovak history is invented", rather mentions legendary and unconfirmed elements of what is generally considered history by the average Slovak. However, this phenomenon is common to most peoples, as made clear by the same paper (in case common sense wouldn't remind someone about the legend on Hunnish-Hungarian connection, or the Daco-Romanian continuity theory, and all that stuff).

On a side note, the wording "it is clear that ... seems to be ..." seems to be a clear sign of really badly disguised POV-pushing, to me at least... :)))

In short, this version was badly biased, and I would also have reverted it.

KissL 09:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ottoman Hungary

1. Ottoman Hungary never existed. This term suggests that there was another Hungarian state under Ottoman tutelage. (partialy true, but it was called Transylvania) The Hungarians use the Subjugated Territories (Hodoltsag) instead

I agree that Ottoman Hungary never existed and Serbs use term Ottoman Empire instead. :) PANONIAN (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don`t know what is it exactly that you don`t understand. It`s clear as daylight that the term "Ottoman Hungary" does not imply that "there was another Hungarian state under Ottoman tutelage." (←your words). The article has been made according to common sense, and by using pre-existent guidelines (see Ottoman Greece, Ottoman Bulgaria, History of Ottoman Serbia, etc.). I really don`t see what`s the problem. Should there be a sign or something, with big letters writing "ACHTUNG! This article is not about a Hungarian state" for the challenged ones to understand what the articles is about? Avaring 12:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

2. De facto these lands were part of the ottoman Empire, but de jure the Habsburgs, as king of Hungary, never renounced to the lands of the Holy Crown: "Nos Maximiliamus secundus, dei gratia electus Romanorum imperator, semper augustus, ac Germaniae, Hungariae, Bohemiae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae, Sclavoniae, Ramae, Serviae, Galliciae, Lodomeriae, Cumaniae, Bulgariaeque ete. rex; " ... --fz22 08:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

By the Ottoman laws, former territories of the Kingdom of Hungary were both, de jure and de facto part of the Ottoman Empire. By the Habsburg laws...well, let just say that even Jerusalem was "de jure" part of Habsburg monarchy according to those laws, which only show how ridiculous were those Habsburg claims what "rightfully" belong to them. PANONIAN (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

And one more interesting thing about Habsburg laws: when Habsburgs pushed out Ottomans from the Pannonian plain, despite this "king of Hungary" stuff in the Habsburg title, they did not treated those lands as "liberated Hungary" but as "new conquered lands" so that they do not have to use Hungarian laws in those lands. PANONIAN (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, the Habsburgs set up the Neoacquistica Commissio with the help of which they were able to influence the development of different regions in Hungary according to their own interests. But this is another story... --fz22 14:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The territories occupied by the Ottomans integrated to the Ottoman Empire and organized into pashaliks. BUT the annexation was never recognized by the Kingdom of Hungary. These counties had seats in the Diet and payed tax. (Though because of the special circumstances they payed only half of the normal tax.) And yes the Habsburgs treated the territories as newly conquered lands, which was a part of their money acqusition plans, was totaly unconstitutional and eventually led to the kuruc rebellions. Bye, László

They did not exactly "payed" those taxes, but Hungarian "hayduks" in their invasions into Ottoman territory forced local population to "pay taxes" to them. A classic excuse for classic robery. And regarding the fact that Kingdom of Hungary did not recognized something, should we also claim that Northern Ireland is not part of United Kingdom because Ireland does not recognize that? The reign of one country over one territory is recognized and sovereign if MOST (but not necessary all) other countries recognize it. Ottoman Empire was recognized by most other countries as owner of those lands, thus if ONLY ONE country disputed this, it was simply not enough to undermine Ottoman sovereignty. PANONIAN (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Naturally there were difficulties to collect those taxes. What is your point anyway? It is crystal clear that there was a territorial dispute between the two powers (Habsburgs and Ottomans) and the history of the parts under Ottoman occupation is clearly a part of Hungarian history. Bye, Laszlo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.182.180.193 (talk) 09:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

"he history of the parts under Ottoman occupation is clearly a part of Hungarian history" - So what else do you want? Avaring 12:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Habsburgs renounced their claims in subsequent peace treaties like the Treaty of Edirne 1568, Zsitvatorok 1606 and Vasvár 1664. Hódoltság was de iure and de facto part of the Ottoman Empire, regardless the fact that many Hungarian never gave up the hope for liberating them and many Hungarian still lived there. Zello 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Disputed?

This article is tagged as disputed, but there is no ongoing discussion on its talk page. I wonder if there is anyone really disputing neutrality of the article or we can remove the tag. If you think the article is not neutral, please state your arguments here, so we can improve it. Tankred 15:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly a rather messy article, and needs a lot of improvement, but it doesn't seem POV to me. Also, you're right, nothing is currently being disputed. I'll remove the tag for now, if another dispute flares up we can add it back. K. Lásztocska 00:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I dispute the article. A large part of it is point of view. Look at the sentence "When Serbs attacked the Hungarians on South, a great general called Ernő Kiss stopped a three Serbian regiments only with 72 hussars it was in 1848." The tone is all very jingoistic and nationalistic. These claims are not referenced and could be totally fabricated.

Names of the Slovak counties should be in Slovak

Some vandals (probably the same person(s) with fake accounts) keep turning names of the Slovak counties of the Kingdom of Hungary into Hungarian names. Is there any other reason than just being ignorant? This is the English Wikipedia so there is no reason these names should be in Hungarian. Native speakers of English wouldn't normally recognize Hungarian names, but Slovak names like Orava or Liptov are recognized because they exist till today. Hungarian wasn't even the official language of the kingdom for centuries, so that argument doesn't hold either. If anything, the names should be in Latin, but that may be confusing. Moreover, the population always was dominantly Slovak in those regions and the Slovak language (in one form or another) was spoken there. Personally, I find holding on on those Hungarian names a little amusing because they are usually nothing else than Hungarian versions of the Latin (Slovak) names. Nevertheless, the Hungarian names (as well as Latin and German) are always mentioned in those articles. Also, the template with Hungarian names needs to be changed a.s.a.p.--Svetovid 10:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is one point of view. Another one may argue that Hungarian was the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary in its last period while Slovak has never been official. Either in the Kingdom nor in those counties. So the last choice is Slovak to name counties preceded by Hungarian or any former official language.

--peyerk 11:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The official language of the kingdom was Latin until (if I remember well) 1848. Then it was Hungarian, German, and again Hungarian. At the same time, counties had also their local names (in Slovak, Romanian, etc.), which were not used in official documents. In my opinion, he most accurate solution would be to use Latin names, but I do not see much support for it. So, another compromise has emerged and remained more or less undisputed until now: to have separate articles for counties (e.g. Szepes county) and for informal regions (Spiš). See Talk:Spiš#Requested_move. Most Hungarian editors seem to prefer a Hungarian name of a county. Although it is clearly an anachronism for most of the history of KoH (when Latin was the official language), it seemed to be a viable compromise until now. It is a pity that a new edit war has been launched over this issue. Tankred 14:24, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I plan to write separate articles (with help of others I hope) for traditional/tourism regions to separate them from counties of the Kingdom of Hungary, which are more or less all done (although quality of some is rather poor). What the Hungarian editors prefer is irrelevant since this is the English Wikipedia. As for the edit war, some misguided and uneducated nationalists will never give up I guess.--Svetovid 15:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. As the template header says Counties of the KoH (1896), I think the only way is to separate the two - like was done with Szepes county and Spiš, Gömör-Kishont and Gemer, or Bars county and Tekov. But some regions are now bit differently defined, for example, Bratislava tourist region (not kraj!) is substantially different from the Pozsony county. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 15:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tankred. We should separate the articles (A few of the has been already separated).Baxter9 16:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that separating historic regions and KoH counties may work well as far as articles on historic regions are not intended to replace those of counties.

As for counties, Hungarian names may be anachronistic for some eras of the history of KoH but Slovak names are totally anachronistic for any era. Furthermore, "list of counties in 1896" must use official Hungarian names.

--peyerk 12:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't have to or even mustn't if those names are not widely used/recognized in English. We should either use Latin or Slovak names for the counties' articles. BTW, I noticed you started to rename those articles without any consensus. Please stop that and try not to be influenced by unreasonable nationalism.--Svetovid 13:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is you editing ignoring previous consensus.

Could you build up some consistent argument please why we should use Slovak names here.

Slovak names are not English so try something else. Please.

--peyerk 13:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there some neutral consensus you are talking about?
Also, do you know what anachronism means? The Hungarian names are just Hungarian versions of Slovak/Slavic/Latin names (which could originate from Celtic and/or Germanic in some cases), so this has nothing to do with anachronism.
For the last time, names widely used and recognized in English should be used. That would be either Latin names in historical accounts and professional writing or Slovak names, because many of those regions/counties still exist today and bear the Slovak names indeed. So Slovak names should be used for consistency's sake and to avoid confusion, but Latin names could also be used for the names of the articles.--Svetovid 16:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The counties were abolished in 1922 so Slovak names were only official for 2 years time. Hungarian names were official from 1836 until 1919 (except 1849-61 period). You weren't more happy with Latin names either because they were basically the Hungarian ones, for example Comitatus Gömöriensis. Zello 16:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll just repeat myself - official names do not matter. Names used and recognized in English do. See Talk:Bratislava or this picture, for example, which all confirm that Hungarian names weren't used in English even when Hungarian was the official language, German names were. We need to discuss here if we want to use the Slovak names because of consistency and to avoid confusion or the Latin or German names to follow historical and professional writing.--Svetovid 17:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Official names don't matter when speaking about a former administrative unit??? This is going to be ever more crazy. Probably you think about Tankred's new naming convention but until now that was only applied to towns not administrative units that CEASED TO EXIST after Trianon and not renamed. This indeed an attempt to re-write history. Obviously when these counties existed they were called in Hungarian names for example by Enc. Brit. 1911 edition. Zello 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If they do please rename the various articles about the KoH into Latin and German when those were the official languages.--Svetovid 17:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no proper Latin names for geographical names only Latinized forms were used in official document. Here is the "Latin name" Comitatus Gömöriensis. Without the grammatical suffix this is simply Gömör - here you have the "Latin name". Zello 17:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So you want to support Slovak or German names then?--Svetovid 18:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that all those sockpuppets being used to edit those articles just show that there are people (person?) with agenda, who want to ignore anything else but their opinion.--Svetovid 18:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I want to use the Hungarian names because they are a more clear cases than Latin. Both Latin and Hungarian were official languages in the past but the Hungarian names have a standard version. This was also the reason behind the former consensus. I think that it was incorrect that you moved every article before discussion and I think you should restore the former version. There was vote before [2] that you broke. Zello 18:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Now we have a huge mess because of this edit war with a lot of confusing articles ang forks. Every change will makes the situation worse. Only an admin can restore some order. Zello 18:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

First get rid of all the forks and let them redirect to the "original" article (the one with the article history). If you're going to create separate articles for the regions and the counties, fine. Markussep 19:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles had Slovak names before being attacked by new users, some of which are apparently sock puppets. I only reverted the changes. The first big move/renaming was started by Baxter 9 (see 25 May 2007), who later apologized and is willing to participate in the discussion, and later followed by a new account User:Hobartimus and until then rather inactive account User_talk:Peyerk. Also, please use : to make this discussion clearer.--Svetovid 19:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're right (I've seen several article histories), now it's time for damage control and a good discussion. Markussep ^Talk 19:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Which Slovak traditional regions require a separate article? And what information should be in there, how do we make sure it's not just a duplicate/fork of the KoH county article? I've seen some successful splits: Spiš/Spiš county, Turiec/Turóc (county), Tekov/Bars county, Zemplín (region)/Zemplén county. But all of them still need cleanup, proper links to the other articles, and probably also renaming to more consistent names. Markussep ^Talk 08:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

So we have another account joining in to participate in editing and reverting - KIDB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Also all these actions are very similar to those of the previously banned user (along with his sock puppets) VinceB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The funny thing is that KIDB joined in after I warned Hobartimus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) about the 3RR rule, which the user of that account obviously knows about.
Currently I will participate in the discussion only, proposing real solutions instead of childish tactics.--Svetovid 11:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Abov and Abaúj. This was separated about a year ago, if I remember well. It can be a positive example, I think. Zello 15:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I just can't agree with you. As those counties were parts of the Kingdom of Hungary, and abolished when the territory that they were (partially) covering was transfered to Czechoslovakia, I don't see any reason to quote their names in Slovakian. fifuszfc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.165.156 (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What language versions to be used for naming former KoH counties?

I try to summarize the aspects to be concidered. At this point help me make a full catalogue of them before starting the debate on them in depth. So please add any aspect I forgot to list here.

• Names used in (native) English resources
• Historic official names
• Other geographic names correlating to county names
• Consistency over KoH
• Language and name used by local population

--peyerk 14:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Consistency - presently the rule is Hung. names for all counties (2-3 Slovak counties are exceptions as a result of former edit wars). Zello 15:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia more or less allows only the first option - names recognized and used in English, which also gives consistency.
As for consistency, the name format should be identical for every county - "Name county" or "Name (county)."
It's also quite obvious that you keep repeating the official names argument because that's the only way you can keep the unnatural Hungarian names. And even if we used official names, they wouldn't be in Hungarian, because those names were valid only for a short time compared to the length of existence of those counties/the KoH.--Svetovid 16:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your text shows me you didn't understand the goal. The first goal here is to collect all aspects we should consider when seeking consensus.

You gave statements on the aspects of other editors. Did you mean you are not interested in other's aspects at all? Or did you mean I should add aspects:

official names of any time don't matter

Hungarian names are unnatural (by definition)

Slovak names are English names (by definition)

the length of official use of a name

Anyway, adding words like "obvious", "unnatural" give no more power to your arguments.

--peyerk 18:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Official names do not bring us further, because the official language changed during the ages (Latin, German, Hungarian), and they're not as relevant as English use. And to Svetovid: Hungarian names were widely used before WW1, see for instance the EB1911 articles about Prešov/Eperjes (the Slovak name isn't even mentioned, and Šariš is called Sáros) and Košice/Kassa (same, also Abaúj-Torna). I'm not sure whether Hungarian names are currently most used when referring to the KoH era. We must avoid anachronisms like Bratislava county (the city wasn't named Bratislava until Czechoslovak independence). Markussep ^Talk 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it should be Pressburg county for that was the name used in English (see Talk:Bratislava). Those articles need to be rewritten somewhat anyway. Those counties had existed for centuries, yet the overall feel gives the idea that those articles are focused on the 1850-1920 era.--Svetovid 21:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If some English books began to use anachronostic names that were never official in the past, wikipedia should reflect their POV? I'm quite sure that in Central Europen topics there is no consistent English usage. Some authors try to use the original names while others are not interested at all. Zello 21:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that English users preferred the German names (as confirmed by Pressburg). I wouldn't mind German names but to avoid confusion, Slovak names would be better. Those Slovak/Slavic names are older than Hungarian so why do you keep repeating the anachronism argument?--Svetovid 21:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no such rule that Slovak names are older than Hungarian. Sometimes they are older, sometimes they aren't. It depends on the given name. Your claim is a typical example of nationalistic myths. Slovak names are anachronistic because contemporary official documents never used them, they used Hung and sometimes German names. "Bratislava county" never existed. No official document called Eperjes Prešov before 1918 although the name certainly existed in Slovak language. Similarly that Eperjes existed in Hungarian language since the 12th century but it was also consistently USED by the administration of the KoH. You try to re-write history when you speake about Prešov in the 16th century. The fact that German names are not hated by you is not a reasonable argument also.

two more:

• Nationality in biographical articles - it seems appropriate to me the usage of Slovak names in the Štur article but Hungarian ones in the Kossuth article
• Any reasonable agreement according to the consensus of the editors working on the given article

I think that the seven point above is substantial for any good naming convention. But this discussion should be moved to the guideline page. Zello 17:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The chaotic outcome of the recent edit war is totally unsatisfactory and all new forks should be deleted. There should be only two articles in each of the disputed cases: one for a region in Slovakia and one for a county of the Kingdom of Hungary (see the solution reached by a poll at Talk:Spiš#Requested_move. The dispute concerns only the names of the counties, so the articles about the regions should remain untouched. I would like also to suggest those editors engaged in the edit war collect evidence of the use of their versions in the English language. This is the English Wikipedia, not the Hungarian or Slovak one. If there is no name widely accepted in English sources, we can have a discussion about which version is and what is not appropriate. My opinion is that the use of Latin names would be the least anachronistic because Latin had been the official language of the kingdom for 93% of its existence. Tankred 20:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The forks obviously should be deleted but no admin took action until now. Zello 21:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I reunited all disputed articles with their histories. Liptov and Liptó county were duplicates, so I merged them back to Liptov. Since I'm not an admin, I couldn't move everything back to the names before the copy-paste war, so the current article names don't necessarily reflect my or anybody's opinion. Markussep ^Talk 14:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Regnum vs Regnorum

I know Regnum means kingdom but also country, rule, etc ... My point is, it is really adequate here to use a backward translation of the term Kingdom of Hungary just beacause the "official" language was Latin?? Even the term "official" seems quite unnatural to me before the 18th century (though language of the administration, science, church was Latin) ... I think this translation is also part of the continuity issue war :) btw 'Regnorum Hungarie' is a more apropiate translation (18th c.: Synopsys novae chronologicae Regnorum Hungariae, Croatiae, Dalmatiae, ...; 17th c.: comite Sigismundo Erdődy de Moniorokerek dictorum regnorum nostrorum Dalmatiae, Croatiae et Sclavoniae bano ) Read these citations also, where regnum means Country:

• quod comodum rei publicae et utilitatem regni ac sacre corone communem
• quanto namque evidencius serenitas regia regno prospicit et corone, tanto diligencius ob favorem reipublice auget numerum bellatorum
• nos prelati, barones, proceres et universi regni nobiles
• generali proclamatione per omnes comitatus regni Hungariae --fz22 08:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an official language in let's say 1200 as the concept was unknown. Even today there are countries like the USA who have no official language, so Wikipedia writes "de facto official language, english" if you check the USA article out. In this case too the 'de facto' official language is more important and the concept of offical language cannot be applied hundreds of years before the concept of an 'official language' was born. I don't really understand how the naming issue becomes a big issue, this is the Kingdom of Hungary article not the, Kingdom of Hungary (etymology) or (name history) or (useless rantings) article. I mean there is so much other, more important stuff to be covered by this article other insignificant stuff should be covered elsewhere. Also the history section is a complete mess it needs major cleanup. Hobartimus 09:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

About "regnum" and "regnorum": "regnorum" is the plural genitive of "regnum" ("of the kingdoms"), see also wiktionary and the link under "second declension". Markussep ^Talk 09:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fz22.

I cannot get the point. Any example given shows that regnum translates exactly as kingdom. Why do you keep changing the exact and unquestionable translation to an imaginary one of yours?!?

As far as I get the point, it is simply that you are not good enough in Latin to discuss about it.

Stop this vandalistic effort, please!

--peyerk 13:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Look Peyerk! The regnum means also country (http://www.tintakiado.hu/cgi-bin/e-szotar/lat/search.cgi). and We cannot know for sure what was in Anonymous mind when he wrote his famous work. What we know is the word Regnum was used ... this could be translated Kingdom or Country depending on the translator (the Hungarian versions are using the term Country ---> http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:eYTeHHrHTVEJ:https://www.law.pte.hu/%3Fhirfile%3D648+ad+utilitatem+regie+corone,+et+regni+commodum&hl=hu&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=hu).

... --fz22 14:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Look Fz22,

I don't know why you are keen of this. Why is it so important for you. In certain - and not rare - situations "Kingdom" and "Country" are interchangeble even in English. (The same applies for "Királyság" and "Ország" in Hungarian as well.) But this fact cannot be interpreted a if the two words were equal in general. You must accept that even if in a sentence you can change two words you cannot change them in other cases. "Regnum Hungariae" cannot be translated as "Country of Hungary". It means "Kingdom of Hungary".

For further research look fir the etymology of "regnum". Anyway, after bringing "Hungarorum" here, you shouldn't keep trying. I won't continue this.

Sorry.

--peyerk 15:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

end of the Kingdom of Hungary

In July without any discussion Hobartimus change the end of the Kingdom of Hungary from 1918 to 1944, without any discussion.

10:05, 5 July 2007 Hobartimus (Talk | contribs) (11,670 bytes) (undo)

It is generally accepted that the end of the Kingdom was 1918 and the Hungary 1920-1944 was not a continuing state. Please stop undoing my changes. Milanmm (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence "it is generally accepted [insert your own POV here]" is bullshit MPOV unless you come up with a source confirming it. However I am afraid that this will be difficult in this case, as what you are stating is one specific POV, not scholarly consensus. KissL 11:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the matter viewed differently by Slovak and Hungarian scholars? If it is disputed, it should be duly noted in the article. Preferably with references for both opinions. rado 15:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless these scholars get to rename countries in other languages (English in this case) its not relevant here, this is the English language wikipedia, not the Slovak one. WP:DNFT also applies here. Hobartimus 16:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how this particular language issue crept in. Isn't it all about a historical and political continuity of the pre-1918 and post-1920 Hungary? We all know that there are different names coined by certain Slavic scholars, but that is just a terminology issue, not relevant in the English language. rado 10:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the end of Uhorsko (Kingdom of Hungary, what is not the good translation) was in 1918, when Czechoslovakia was formed. Hungary after 1918 should NOT be treat as a Kingdom of Hungary, but as one of its descendent states. --Wizzard (talk) 07:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I never thought that someone can think about some date after 1918, but it was not the first surprise on en.wiki :) --Wizzard (talk) 07:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia where English names of countries are used. As it happens changing the English language or established names of countries during certain periods to accomodate some POV is not possible. On other wikipedias you might be free to use names invented by yourself for example, but use of English is non-negotiable here. Hobartimus (talk) 09:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why someone would use the name invented by yourself? It is not possible on Wikipedia. The joke is, that you, Hungarians, know that the country till 1918 was not the same like that after 1918. Also, you know that the the Kingdom of Hungary was only a part of Austria-Hungary in 1867–1918 and it was not independent anymore. --Wizzard (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

If so many are interested in this subject, I would suggest that the only governing principle should be the TRUTH based on written original evidences. Please, do not take 100% any historians, esp, old ones, rely on sources. (like in Greater Moravia, Balaton, Blaton principality, Franks became Slovaks, the Fulda Annals were neglected, Slovak nationalistic theories prevailed, and all other opinions regularly cleaned from the articles)

THE HISTORY OF HUNGARY KEEPS CHANGING, sounds absurd, but true, please, accept arguments and counterarguments.

Throw away clichees, like Szepes / Zips was Slovak, bacause in the last 500 years few Hungarian lived there. It was German till the late 18th century, and many villages had Hungarian names, not Slavic. So inhabitant of its cities could not be acient Slovaks as oppose to Hungarians, but were Zipsers (as shown in few 15-16th century town law books of that cities and of Buda-Ofen). (please do not debate this here but in the article)

The official name was Regnum Hungaria in EN Hungary, so change this into a Ukrainian, early Polish name makes in my opinion absolutely no sense.

Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavonia were legally independent kingdoms, bound in personal union to Hungary. --Vargatamas (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical perceptions stuff

There is little doubt that the text in that paragraph is adequate. It is true that it would require citations – that's what {{fact}} tags are for. KissL 12:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I only meant, that if now everybody starts to "improve" it could turn inadecquate (interest of SK-SK wikiusers, part of different action lists- onesided presenatation of two sided facts in SK related articles, elimination of Zipser Germans, Ruthenians, Hungarians from later became Slovakia), however increase in material/quality in general should be welcomed.

--Vargatamas (talk) 13:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We basically agree. My comment was primarily directed towards Hobartimus as an explanation why I restored the paragraph he had removed. KissL 14:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please everyone first very carefully read WP:NOR it is not optional it is mandatory policy on Wikipedia. When there are several thousand languages and someone picks out three to make a point that is THE text book example of original resarch if there is one. For example I could easily pick the German, English, Hungarian languages to use as examples or any other that I'd chose based on my research, and remove the ones currently there, but this is exactly why WP:NOR is an official policy, not a user written essay or a guideline. Citations or lack of referencing is not the issue here original research is, and wikipedia policy WP:NOR is quite clear. The question is only, can it be considered OR or not? Hobartimus (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sure no one has ever argued that there are "thousands" languages relevant for this article. There are only few relevant languages (those of the nations living in the KoH) and the ones cited in the article illustrate the point of the paragraph. It is an example illustrating different perspectives on the continuity issue, not a comprehensive list of names in various languages. But I feel that you in reality understand the purpose of that paragraph... Tankred (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There could be thousands just as relevant to Slovene, no offense to Slovene. Also according to wikipedia policy it's not the job of the editor to decide, and cherry pick examples to stregthen his own POV, but merely to report on what research was already done in a subject. Original research must be removed as per WP:NOR, this is not a lowly guideline this is official policy I am sure you can understand and appriciate the difference. Hobartimus (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

To illustrate the purpose of that paragraph a good reference would be the most important improvement. And not one single Slovak historian's argument about the continuity question but something which reflects the general academic consensus. I'm not an expert in this topic but I'm sure that Slovak and Romanian perceptions about the KoH are almost as different as Slovak and Hungarian ones. Specifically I doubt that there is a strong Romanian tradition of "our common multiethnic country". But without real references (and someone with enough knowledge) the shorter the paragraph is the better. Every "improvement" will be original research. Zello (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The nationalities in the territory of the Kingdom of Hungary did not have autonomy (with the exception of Croatians in a late phase) as far as I know, so talking about a 'common state of nations' is more than misleading. Bring a good source for this part to be included. Squash Racket (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the first paragraph of that section, about the continuity between the Kingdom of Hungary and the Republic of Hungary is well-referenced, so it may be inserted if there is concensus. I don't mind adding a referenced(!) part about what other nations think about the Kingdom now, but this "multiethnic common state" vision (some kind of federalism) is misleading.Squash Racket (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As requested by several users here, I have edited the problematic section of the article, providing references to a peer-reviewed academic journal (by the way, an article was co-authored by a well-known American scholar and a Hungarian scholar, so you can hardly say it is POV) and a book published by Oxford University Press. However, User:Hobartimus immediately deleted the whole section again.[3] Is there anyone challenging credibility of the provided references? If you do, please provide references on your own. Otherwise, deletion of a well-sourced section is nothing more than your original research and will be reverted. Tankred (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please do not confuse this article titled "Kingdom of Hungary" with another one titled "Tankred's personal soapbox". The fact that you can find reference to something, or somebody's opinion does NOT mean automatic inclusion in a Wikipedia article. This is "in contrast" to your personal writings, where low quality edits describing doubious statements "as fact" can be automaticly inserted without as much as a word of discussion. You could further consider that "historical perceptions" section as a whole are possibly highly irrelevant or inappropriate to this important main article which is still a question to be decided. Hobartimus (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to give us a longer citation here on the talk page to see the statements of the authors and their relevance to the paragraph. I'm not against the whole idea but the present sentence is vague and "in fact" is certainly not the best start for presenting an opinion. Zello (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Kissl's version added today seems more acceptable than the previous one, but I wonder what those two references exactly talk about... Squash Racket (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It is honestly starting to become laughable ... "bore little resemblance, in territory or population" sure, this is a obvious ... 320skm to 93skm and 22 million to 7 million? And what if this territory shrinkage would 320 -> 100, 130, 160km2 ??? It would bore little MORE resemblance? ... you see the logic? The state administration, the bureaucracy, the courts, police were the same ...--fz22 (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Hungary bore little resemblance to Hungary, only because it was a multiethnic and later multinational state, which would suggest the Treaty of Trianon was totally fair. That suggestion makes it unacceptable this way. Squash Racket (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Neither the cited article, nor the discussed paragraph mention the Treaty of Trianon. Although I tried hard, I really do not see how a sentence about the multiethnic character of the Kingdom of Hungary "suggests the Treaty of Trianon was totally fair". Tankred (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph doesn't mention the Treaty of Trianon, because you keep deleting it. "Being a multiethnic, later multinational state" as the only reason for that little resemblance in territory or population may give a false impression regarding the events after WWI. Squash Racket (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed edits in articles about counties

[posts prior to 9 April copied from User talk:Hobartimus ]

Hi, I see you [Hobartimus]'re edit warring with Tankred about counties of the Kingdom of Hungary. I wouldn't call his behaviour Wikipedia:STALK, because that implies intended disruption. IMO this is just a dispute that covers several counties in present Slovakia, Slovak POV vs. Hungarian POV. I suggest you two stop reverting and start discussing the disputed topics in the articles. From what I see, taking Komárom county as an example:

• adding/removing Slovak names for neighbouring counties that are in present Slovakia: I don't see the objection against adding them once in the article.
• was the capital Komárno or Komárom: the town on the presently Hungarian right bank of the Danube, Komárom, was a separate village called Újszőny before 1896. The capital of the county was the town Komárom on the left bank, now Komárno in Slovakia. Try to find a NPOV formulation for this.
• 1918 or 1920: I'm not sure when exactly Czechoslovak rule started in this county. Would "de facto since 1918, de jure (Treaty of Trianon) since 1920" describe the situation correctly?
• Vienna Award, "became part of" or "was occupied by": I don't think Czechoslovakia ceded this territory voluntarily. In a similar situation, the Munich Agreement, the term "occupation" is used.

Markussep ^Talk 16:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Markussep, thank you for your useful suggestions. I generally agree with all of them:

• The Slovak names of neighboring counties should be mentioned at least at the first occurrence of a county's name in an article.
• The capital was Komárno, not Komárom. Unless someone proves that Komárom is a widely accepted name of Komárno in the English language, Komárno should be used. It would be not only compliant with WP:NCGN and WP:ENGLISH, but also the correct link.
• The distinction between de facto and de jure would be acceptable to me. We should find an NPOV formulation.
• I completely agree that the word "occupation" is justified in this case. Vienna Awards were nullified under the international law and the cession of territories was forced.

Cheers. Tankred (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The modern Slovak regions are not exactly based on the historical Hungarian county system. If these regions are not the same, why should the modern Slovak names be mentioned? To confuse readers?

In 1920 the Treaty of Trianon assigned the county to Czechoslovakia.

or

In 1918 (as confirmed by the Treaty of Trianon 1920), the county became part of the newly formed Czechoslovakia.

I think the Treaty of Trianon was not just a confirmation, the exact borders were still undecided. Edvard Benes was negotiating well for the Czechs and Slovaks while the Hungarian delegation made serious mistakes trying to restore the original borders of the Kingdom of Hungary instead of focusing on the borders along ethnic lines (see Red Map at the Treaty of Trianon).

So how did the territory become part of Czechoslovakia in 1918 and why is it correct to present Trianon as a simple confirmation of that? "Confirmed by" suggests the Treaty was just a formality regarding final borders.

This discussion rather belongs to Talk:Comitatus (Kingdom of Hungary) or on the talk page of a county than here. Squash Racket (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about the modern Slovak regions here, but about the contemporary Slovak names of the KoH counties, that often coincide with those of "traditional regions" in modern Slovakia. I don't see the harm or confusion in showing these names in the first occurrence of the county. See it as a service to our readers.

Czechoslovakia proclaimed independence in October 1918, and that included Slovakia, although parts of Slovakia were in Hungarian hands until 1919 or 1920. The border with Hungary was settled at the Treaty of Trianon in June 1920. Let's think of a neutral expression for that.

I chose this talk page because I expect more traffic here, that's all. Markussep ^Talk 17:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about modern Slovak regions here and for some reason you want to use their names for old Hungarian counties. The name Bratislava was invented in 1919 if I remember well, so let's use "Bratislava county" for a pre-Trianon system? After all our efforts to remove at least some really awkward anachronisms, you want to create new ones? Squash Racket (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about modern regions. You're completely right that Bratislava was not known as such before 1919, so I wouldn't use "Bratislava county" (Prešporok would be preferable). I'm referring to names likes Spiš, Tekov, Turiec, Liptov, Šariš, Gemer-Malohont and Orava, and looking east: Caraş-Severin, Maramureş, Târnava-Mică, Solnoc-Dăbâca. I'm pretty sure these names were used before 1918. Markussep ^Talk 07:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Presporok county? Interesting. Are these names widely accepted in historical English language references? Or you want to rephrase the whole WP:NCGN just like us? Squash Racket (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be Pressburg County for Pressburg is the historically preferred name. See Talk:Bratislava/Archive_2#Poll.--Svetovid (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We are talking about counties, not cities. Pozsony county is the historically preferred name for Pozsony county. And I'm asking if we want to include anachronisms regarding counties, will we also include really relevant Hungarian names for pre-Trianon mentions of cities?

Regarding the link you presented: what is the reason for Hungarians not voting there? Were they notified? And why does nobody (not even you) respect the final result of that "vote"? Squash Racket (talk) 08:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand the remark about rephrasing WP:NCGN. IMO my proposal w.r.t. Slovak and Romanian names is in concordance with point 2 under WP:NCGN#General guidelines (relevant alternative names). I'm not proposing to move articles to other names. The Bratislava/Pressburg/Pozsony/Prešporok case is something special, let's focus on the general issue. Markussep ^Talk 11:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Relevant alternative names in the main article. In other articles only the most widely accepted English name should be used (at least according to one interpretation of WP:NCGN). Tankred kept deleting Hungarian names from historically Hungary-related articles, because these can be found in the main article of the city/town in question.
You can find alternative names in the lead of Hungarian counties' articles or a separate "Names" section right now. Squash Racket (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You keep inaccurately assuming that the Hungarian language was the main language in the Kingdom of Hungary. The main languages were Latin and German (until Magyarization, which lasted only a short time of kingdom's history) and particular nations used their native languages, and Magyars were a minority. Therefore, using Hungarian names as the main names in KoH-related articles is either based on confusion or POV-pushing.--Svetovid (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see neither the German, nor the Latin forms of the counties widely used in English (you do?). Hungarians were the largest ethnic group in the Kingdom of Hungary (well, of course) and any accusation of confusion or POV pushing coming from you is a bit ridiculous after you see this link as a proof for anything. Squash Racket (talk) 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The counties are not widely written about in English in the first place. Modern writers use the Slovak names often so I concur that they should be used.
Ad hominem - ignored as always.--Svetovid (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Modern writers use the Hungarian names for old Hungarian counties multiple times more.
Who started writing about inaccurate assumptions, confusion and POV-pushing instead of discussing issues in a civilized way? I mean once again? Squash Racket (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Please no accusations. I think it is well known that over the ages there were several official languages, and several commonly used languages in the KoH simultaneously. About WP:NCGN, the third general guideline (which admittedly fits the situation at hand better) states: If more than one historic name is applicable for a given historical context, the other names should be added after the modern English name, i.e.: "historical name (English name, other historical names)".. If we really want to get to the bottom of this, we might dive into modern English literature about the history of Central Europe, to see what name is used more. My question is: is it a bad thing to add Slovak and Romanian names as alternatives (i.e. not linked, and in parentheses), where they are relevant? Markussep ^Talk 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We can add them at the moment we can freely add Hungarian names to cities in a historical context where they are relevant. For example Kassa, Pozsony, Besztercebánya, Temesvár, Kolozsvár etc. At least these wouldn't be anachronisms. But according to Tankred's interpretation both would be "violation of WP:NCGN". Squash Racket (talk) 16:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Modern writers use the Hungarian names for old Hungarian counties multiple times more."
Evidence? And "multiple times more" is a very vague term.--Svetovid (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Try Google search for example (English language hits, without Wikipedia). I think evidence should be presented for anachronisms, not original names anyway, don't you think? Squash Racket (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If the Hungarian names are relevant (and I suppose they are, notably in historic contexts), I see no objection to mentioning them. My quote from WP:NCGN supports this. The anachronisms remark only applies to Bratislava IMO. Markussep ^Talk 16:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You see no objections, but Slovak, Romanian etc. users also see it that way?

One more thing: while the historical Hungarian names are applied only for the old Hungarian counties, the modern Slovak names are mainly used for modern, existing Slovak regions with differing territories compared to that of the counties of the Kingdom. Squash Racket (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You can always point them to WP:NCGN, if they object. I don't think it's relevant that the names are used for (slightly) different territories in a modern context. For example, Nitra region (Nitriansky kraj) and Nitra district (Okres Nitra) are different from Nitra/Nyitra county (Nitrianska župa/Nyitra vármegye). In the historic context, there is no confusion. Markussep ^Talk 17:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If Hungarian names may be used in historical context for cities, I don't mind. If Pozsony, Kassa, Besztercebánya, Kolozsvár etc. may be used, then it's OK. But that should be mentioned at WP:NCGN after all the disputes over this there. Squash Racket (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You made the claim that "Modern writers use..." so that the burden of proof is on you.--Svetovid (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Svetovid, who made the claim "Modern writers use..." first[4]? Would you please read your own comments above and stop misleading people? I even offered using Google (English language hits, without Wikipedia). You didn't offer any proof. Squash Racket (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding: I wouldn't use Kassa, Besztercebánya, Kolozsvár etc. exclusively, but always in combination with (at least once) the Slovak or Romanian name. If WP:NCGN isn't clear enough, please suggest a modification on its talk page. So do we agree now that alternative names for neighbouring counties, cities etc. may be given in the county articles? Markussep ^Talk 08:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

These are already presented in the main articles of the counties. Slovak version of Komárom county is already present in the article Komárom county. Squash Racket (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I said that the counties are not written about in English too much and that modern writers use the Slovak names often, which is quite different from a claim that: "Modern writers use the Hungarian names for old Hungarian counties multiple times more." I never made the claim that the Slovak names are used more than other versions, etc.
Avoiding your red herring, where is the evidence for your claim again?--Svetovid (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Above you qouted "Modern writers use..." (without how many times), which was definitely mentioned by you first. So I once again ask you to read your own comments. I won't repeat the evidence the third time for you. If you can find better, provide it.

Please try to keep talk page formula. Squash Racket (talk) 09:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether I said something first is irrelevant BTW. Your claim either is either valid or is not. So far, you haven't presented any evidence that it's valid. Or are you saying that if my claim is false, yours is too or that if my claim is right, yours is too, or that if my claim is false, yours is right etc.?--Svetovid (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Squash Racket, we've been discussing all the time about whether it's OK to mention alternative names in other articles, e.g. mention Bars and Tekov as its alternative name (once) in the Hont article. I know the alternative names are given in the articles about the counties themselves, that's not the point. Markussep ^Talk 09:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That would be a violation of (Tankred's interpretation of) WP:NCGN. I've already tried to change it many times (see the guideline's talk page), but without a result. If you want to change it now, you should make a new proposal. Squash Racket (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I've looked superficially at Tankred's edit war with Rembaoud (e.g. the Martin Hattala article). From what I saw, Rembaoud was replacing Slovak names for towns presently in Slovakia (in biographies) with Hungarian names, claiming they were anachronisms (which they're not of course, Slovak names have been in use for ages), and Tankred reverted it. I think it would have been a nice compromise to show both names, with the most commonly used name linked. WP:NCGN supports this, so it doesn't have to be modified, maybe an example could be added. Markussep ^Talk 10:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Markussep, how many diffs do you want when Tankred was deleting Hungarian names and leaving only the Slovak version there referring in his edit summaries to WP:NCGN? He left only the supposedly most widely used form in English there (if it was Slovak of course): [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] etc. etc.

He thinks that if you wanted to use a Hungarian name in a historical context, you should provide proof (for every single city) it was the most widely used English version based on one of the six methods you can find at WP:NCGN. Otherwise he removed it. Squash Racket (talk) 14:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Tankred was wrong in these cases, WP:NCGN doesn't say you have to remove alternative names. But let's focus on the counties again. My proposal:

1. for neighbouring counties, towns etc. use the (shortened) article title as the primarily used name in the article; alternative (Romanian, Slovak, Rusyn, Hungarian) names are allowed at the first occurrence, in parentheses. Avoid anachronisms (names that weren't used at the time, like Štúrovo and Bratislava), or, if the current name is much more used than the historic one, use it in combination with "present"
2. situation 1918-1920: since the situation in Slovakia and Transylvania wasn't very clear before the 1920 Treaty of Trianon (the new borders of Czechoslovakia and Romania were recognised by the Allies in 1918, but not by Hungary, and there were several military conflicts etc.), we could make it: "In the aftermath of World War I, county X became part of Czechoslovakia/Romania, as confirmed by the 1920 Treaty of Trianon"
3. situation 1938-1945: since the Vienna Awards weren't exactly in line with international law, we could make it: "During World War II, county X was occupied by Hungary under the provisions of the First Vienna Award"

Markussep ^Talk 16:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away here. Any proposal about Slovak , Hungarian names obviously has to include biographies, historc articles etc etc. There can be no proposal that only covers county articles while certain users feel free to conduct mass removals of Hungarian alternative names anywhere else. Hobartimus (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being solution-oriented. What I wrote above is specific for county articles. Slovak vs. Hungarian names in biographies etc. are satisfactorily covered by WP:NCGN. If some users remove alternative names anyway, they should be told (nicely) that they're wrong. Markussep ^Talk 19:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that alternative names have some value and I can see a proposal that says something along the line of "I think it would have been a nice compromise to show both names" where you referred to the edit war between Tankred and Rembaoud above, in the case of Slovak - Hungarian names simply include both names. A proposal like that (or any proposal for that matter) gets intresting when faced by actual tests of wiki reality like mass reverts done by Tankred. Hobartimus (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm more optimistic than you about wiki reality. I managed, by discussion, to get rid of horrible article titles like Unsere Liebe Frau im Walde - St.Felix-Senale - San Felice, Kastelbell - Tschars-Castelbello - Ciardes and Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe / Woluwe-Saint-Lambert. That was in October and December 2006, and the articles haven't been moved since. BTW, as you may have seen above, Tankred agreed with my proposal. How about the other issues, Trianon and Vienna Award? Markussep ^Talk 22:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• The question of the counties and the cities can not be separated regarding alternative names
• In the aftermath of World War I, the area (temporarily?) became part of the newly formed Czechoslovakia, the final borders were set by the Treaty of Trianon in 1920" seems more encyclopedic to me. A confirmation is a formality, the Hungarian delegation had the chance to reach more acceptable results if they didn't concentrate on restoring the original borders of the Kingdom of Hungary.
• The Hungarian forces wanted to modify borders more according to ethnic lines, so "occupation" seems very odd and misleading here. As far as I know these regions were mostly Hungarian majority areas. I don't know how to better formulate this now. Squash Racket (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• How many times do I have to repeat it? The alternative names question is solved, we have WP:NCGN for that.
• It's a bad idea to use "temporarily", 20 years is long. I think the "final borders were set" part is only relevant if (part of) the territory of the county changed hands as a result of Trianon. Confirmation may not sound strong enough for you, but it is the most applicable word. Czechoslovakia declared its independence (probably for the territory on the Czechoslovak side of the ceasefire lines) in 1918, but wasn't recognised by Hungary until 1920 (at least for the Slovak part, I'm not sure whether Hungary recognised independent Bohemia earlier).
• Hungary recognised the border with Czechoslovakia in 1920. It doesn't matter that there was a local Hungarian majority, it was a violation of international law, similar to the German occupation of Sudetenland. Or would you call the Munich Agreement and its aftermath anything else than "occupation"? Markussep ^Talk 08:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• There are more than one interpretations for WP:NCGN; our goal is to possibly avoid future edit wars; Tankred and you interpret this guideline quite differently (so don't get upset);
• I would use temporarily for the two(!)-year period between the end of WWI (1918) and Trianon (1920) when the borders were set; "Confirmed by" suggests the borders were set in 1918 which is not true, it was only a temporary state (well, what were they doing at the peace conference for a year?)
• I think slapping an occupation label on a controversial issue is not NPOV; I would describe what happened a bit more detailed (in light of the Benes decrees I don't think ethnic Germans' position was so stable in Czechoslovakia after 1918, so I'd provide some background for the whole situation there too); I think if we say "violating the terms of the Treaty (Dictate?) of Trianon" or simply "occupying", we didn't say the same things. Squash Racket (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus on the issues of the alternative names. You said above "I think it would have been a nice compromise to show both names" referring to the case of Slovak - Hungarian names. Let's work on how could that be implemented in all articles, how such a compromise can be workable? That is the important issue here let's not get bogged down with unproductive discussions. Hobartimus (talk) 09:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• I suppose Tankred overreacted, I suggest we discuss it next time a controversial edit is made, and judge it by WP:NCGN. I think it would help to add an example to the WP:NCGN page, something like "Mr X was born in Prešov (Eperjes), in the Kingdom of Hungary" or, what's OK with me too, "Mr X was born in Eperjes (Prešov), in the Kingdom of Hungary". Unfortunately, there are several editors (often anonymous) who think that Slovak names didn't exist before 1918, and others who think that using Hungarian names for Slovak towns implies a Hungarian claim on these towns.
• 1918-1920: "In the aftermath of World War I, the area became part of newly formed Czechoslovakia, as recognized by the concerned states in the 1920 Treaty of Trianon"
• 1938-1945: "Following the provisions of the controversial First Vienna Award, the area came under Hungarian control in November 1938" (sounds better than occupied?)

• To me OK, to everyone we'll see...
• "In the aftermath of World War I, the area became part of newly formed Czechoslovakia, with the borders set by the Treaty of Trianon in 1920" (there was a lot of negotiating about the exact borders at the peace conference, Hungary signed it unwillingly to say the least, so I think this formulation is more neutral)
• To me OK. Squash Racket (talk) 12:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

My problem with the "with the borders set" part is that this only applies to Czechoslovakia as a whole, and to the counties that were directly on the border or divided by it (it doesn't apply to Turóc, Szepes etc.). If you know how the Trianon border differs from the initial Czechoslovak claims, you may want to add that to the Treaty of Trianon article, and the articles of the concerned counties. My "recognized by the concerned states" formulation is true and neutral, isn't it? I think it goes without saying that there were tough negotiations, and that Hungary wasn't too pleased with the provisions of the treaty, neither were Germany at Versailles and Austria at Saint-Germain. I'll start implementing our changes in the county articles. Markussep ^Talk 16:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Kosovo from which date should we write that the territory "became part of" the Republic of Kosovo and no longer "part of" Serbia? From 1990 (declaration of independence) 1999 (military control by UCK with help of NATO) 1999(UN administration starts, no longer administered by Serbia) 2008 feb 18. (2nd declaration of independence) 2008 march (independence recognized by some states). Just so we know your standards of an area "becoming part of" another country. You earlier referenced "international law" in one of your comments. Please tell us according to international law what are the criteria of a country losing it's sovereign territory so it can become "part of" another country. (on an unrelated note how can you make so many edits to articles about geographic locales? do you simply copy the info from other wikis with a bot or semi bot?) Hobartimus (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I'm not a lawyer. I guess what counts in international law is that all concerned parties accept the change in situation. In some cases that goes smoothly (Czechoslovakia 1993, Soviet Union 1991), in others it doesn't, for instance the Netherlands recognized Belgian independence only in 1839, 9 years after Belgium declared independence (meanwhile, most Dutch have accepted that 1830 is the "birth year" of Belgium). Both years are mentioned in the Belgium article. On the unrelated note: I copy from French wikipedia, and if the data aren't available there, I search them on government internet sites. Markussep ^Talk 19:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to be a lawyer to answer the first part of the question and know your own standards and definitions based on which you edited multiple articles. The second part of the question was only put there because you referenced term earlier in the discussion but it seems we didn't get much further ahead by that. Until we can't get through even the basics it's not a good idea to edit the articles. Hobartimus (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's not draw Kosovo into this discussion. Since Squash Racket agreed, and you didn't comment on the contents of my proposal, I went ahead and replaced the previous, edit-war-sensitive references to Trianon and the Vienna Award in the county articles with something like this: [11]. I deliberately chose the vague time indication "In the aftermath of World War I" because the situation wasn't very clear between the armistice and the Treaty of Trianon. If you can think of a better, neutral wording, be my guest (proposal on this page first). Markussep ^Talk 21:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I just wanted to know what you mean when you say "rule started" "became part of" in your own words. It was not clear what event this was referring to or generally what should be considered such and I just wanted to clarfiy. I'll think on it maybe come up with some proposal later, needless to say I didn't want to change your version without discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not nececcerily right. For the historical names that is rather complex. Pozsony/Bratislava/Pressburg was called in SK Presburga, not Bratislava until 1920. The names of teh counties were never Slovak, since after WW1 the county system was reorganized, counties cut into two etc. (refer to contemporary documents, medieval diplomas). All towns in Hungary were German until 16th century, esp. in today Slovakia, Käsemarkt, etc even to 18th century (lot of town laws survive from late middle age, all in German, refering to Germans). Bratislava diplomas even from Sigismund's reign in 15th century all people named are Germans. No Slovak ever mentined, Otto of Freising in 12 century called it Bosan (the name Pozsony in HU.

The best resource from 1790s years is Vali Andras's book which lists all villages/towns with their population and anems in various languages (reprinted recently in Slovakia language Hungarian) except governourship Transylvania. So the 18th century status seems to be known.

What is wrong if you call localties only in SK? There are changes of 20th century e.g Sturovo, from SK "heros" which town populates by Hungarians, never in the period in question was called that way. Also counties, never had Slovak names. I can also call Königsberg Kaliningrad, but Immanuel Kant never lived in Russia. That is anthaginism. So Tankred uses not the historical Slovak names but the actual ones. That is anachronism and not correct.

You have also to consider Slovak did not exists until 16th century. There is no document on that language. See some articles, list of Slovaks, all Germans (expelled 1945) (Zipsers) are already Slovaks. 300,000 Jews in 1920 are also incorporated.

I think the truth is very complex, we have to be careful with statements. Not like in Holland.

--Vargatamas (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are so many errors and erroneous generalisations in your post that I can't take it seriously. Markussep ^Talk 11:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Native name - clutter the article or make it NPOV?

The Kingdom of Hungary was a multinational and multilingual kingdom. As such, there are several native names. Therefore, we should either include all of them, which would clutter the box, or none of them to keep NPOV.
Saying that other articles contain something is not a valid argument. If they are incorrect and follow a biased POV, they should be corrected.--Svetovid (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is usual, accepted form in similar cases. Squash Racket (talk) 04:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And what is this accepted form? Hungarian name > others? Accepted by whom and on what basis?--Svetovid (talk) 11:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just checked a few similar articles (like Austrian Empire, France in the Middle Ages) with similar infoboxes (main native name and English version). The English language uses Hungary for both the Kingdom of Hungary and post-Trianon Hungary, so I think English readers most likely expect to find the Hungarian version of the name there, neither a mess nor just the English form. Squash Racket (talk) 11:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What you expect others to find is irrelevant. The name in Hungarian is not the main native name. There is no such a thing as a main native name in the Kingdom of Hungary if you want to keep NPOV.--Svetovid (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If you find my closely reasoned comment "irrelevant", what should I say about yours? Squash Racket (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Our personal opinions are irrelevant. Facts matter. Do you have any to back up your claim and keep it NPOV?--Svetovid (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Fact: cited similar articles and similar infoboxes as examples. Fact: the English language - unlike the Slovak language - views Hungary as the legal/cultural successor of the Kingdom of Hungary, not a different entity. Squash Racket (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't be cited as a source and it's circular reasoning anyway. Republic of Hungary is a successor of the Kingdom of Hungary and so is Slovakia. That is the whole point! Anything else?--Svetovid (talk) 11:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Our personal opinions are irrelevant to this discussion. Please propose something sensible supported by arguments "relating to the improvement of the article", so your comments won't have to be removed per talk page policy. Hobartimus (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Erm, just as a small civility course correction, it's a wee bit uncivil to say "your personal opinions are irrelevant", since it's personally-targeted. Better is to make it more encompassing, such as "our personal opinions" or "personal opinions". As an exercise, perhaps everyone here could try to write comments without using the word "you" or "your"? It's surprising how quickly that can change the tone to something more cooperative and collegial.  :) --Elonka 03:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Hobartimus only reacted to Svetovid's remark two comments before, though perhaps not the best way.

Elonka, as you can see I just had to repeat myself in this discussion. A new proposal backed by new facts is welcome though. Squash Racket (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you trying to suggest that Slovakia is not a successor of the KoH?--Svetovid (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Absoltely right. As alternative, I would suggest use the book of Vali Andras /description of Hungary all villages listed in all languages possible for the locality) of 1798, recently reprinted in Slovakia, where the recent ethnic boundaries already developed and provide all name he provides. This names are not newly created, used in the late 18th-early 19th century. Anachronistic names like Sturovo and Bratislava would be nonsense for the period. --Vargatamas (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the discussion is about the "native name" of the Kingdom of Hungary in the infobox of this article, not about villages. Markussep ^Talk 13:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

1: Svetovid, you write: "personal opinions irrelevant". Then why have you started this thread with a "unchallengeable-styled" statement describing your own personal opinion about the KoH as a mainstream "dogma"? :)) 2: What are your sources claiming this? I hope not the same wich describes Great Moravia as a (proto-)Slovak state. 3: When "Szlovákia" will be an official name besides Slovensko, maybe (and only if you can bring strong enough sources) we can discuss your claims of deleting the Hungarian name of the country, named "Kingdom of Hungary", wich was BTW established by the Hungarians for themselves, and was and is always lead and dominated by Hungarians who always spoke the Hungarian language and was always an official language even if Latin or German was written into the laws. For example the esablishing of the abbey at Tihany was written in Hungarian in 1055. Ten fifty-five. Latin in those times was the same like English nowadays: de facto world language. --Rembaoud (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian witch- and vampire trials

Hello! I am most interested in the subject of witch trials, and have contributed myself with articles in that subject. I think there should be cases representing all countries here on wikipedia. Most countries are now in some way represented, but Hungary is lacking. This is truly a shame, as, judging by the little I have heard, the Hungarian witch trials was quite interesting, as they also involved accusations about vampyrism. There was to have ben a large series of witch trials in Hungary in 1738. Unfortunately, i can't read Hungarian, and the information on the net seems small. Does anyone know anything about this? If anyone here are interested in the subject, I think this would be intereting to read about. I would be grateful for just a stub article, or a name to google. --Aciram (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Currency

Does anybody know what kind of currency was used in this state before Austrian-Hungarian gulden? Thx. --Wizzard (talk) 22:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary map

hi, The map represents the historic territory of the Kingdom of Hungary. This territory somewhat varied between historical periods, sometimes it expanded, sometime it decreased. It is just a a indication. --Bizso (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Squash Racket (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph on ethnic issues in Transylvania

This paragraph is about the ethnic composition of Transylvania, most of it will be removed as a scant duplication of the article Origin of the Romanians. It's not possible to mention all the arguments pro and contra in this article in detail. Squash Racket (talk) 06:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree we cannot detail this controversy here, except a brief description of the ethnic composition and political status of this territory, please see my edit. Cheers Best4all (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You agree we can not detail the controversy here, still you added honorary member of the Romanian academy who even refers to contemporary Romanian historiography regarding the issue. I also added a brief explanation. Squash Racket (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you that the entire presentation of the debate should be on the Origin of Romanians page, but I see that User:Squash Racket is adding more text against the Daco-Roman continuity theory...I agree to evoke in short both POVs, the actual form [12] seems acceptable for all, don't you think? Carpaticus (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the actual presentation of the debate must be at Origin of the Romanians, not here. A short sentence is enough: "The ethnic composition of Transylvania before the Hungarian conquest is disputed, see Origin of the Romanians".
Presenting both POVs in a short and scant form is unacceptable, because you will only agree with yourself on what is "neutral" as we could see so far. Squash Racket (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Too short would be misleading. However, the actual form presents both POVs in a succinct manner, with additional bias on Hungarian arguments, I would say. Carpaticus (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It can't be "too short", because the list of arguments pro and contra is very complex. This is not a business where you give some Romanian points for some Hungarian ones and we have a "deal". This is an encyclopedia.
I even wonder whether this debate should be presented at that at length in the article Transylvania. The topic is overemphasized and should be removed also because of that. Just imagine if we would add similar, scant, fake "analysis" about every single ethnic group... This article is a summary of almost 1000 years of history of a former state, the paragraph is simply irrelevant. Squash Racket (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I really understand your POV. Theoretically, you might be somehow right, but practically...you are not. If you remember, the actual paragraphs about this topic from both - Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania - pages have been built on condensed, succinct, quoted texts - that were absolutely necessary. The information about Transylvania's autonomous status and its complex ethnic history from the very beginning are historic facts that must be clearly presented. And, if you remember, when I added that text about autonomous status of Transylvania before 1526, you challenged it [13], by requiring a clarification regarding the period, thereafter you added some more information and so on and so forth...If we concentrate the text, it would not be the same as in the original book...you marked my sentences with verification failed, remember? So...practically we have this form that is a compromise...like many others in an encyclopedia. I believe that both articles have the proper emphasis on this topic, the details being discussed in the linked pages. Carpaticus (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There is NO consensus and there is NO compromise. Please don't pretend... The paragraph obviously should be removed from this article.
I asked for a date for when Transylvania started to develop autonomy. What has this got to do with the Daco-Roman theory? You are mixing and confusing things again.
The "complex ethnic history of Transylvania" may be mentioned in the article Transylvania, that specific debate regarding the Daco-Roman arguments NOT EVEN there, rather only in the article Origin of the Romanians.
I simply didn't want to break 3RR like you did, that's why I didn't delete the paragraph, I never agreed with having it. I added the tags because BESIDES adding irrelevant info, you also falsified what the references said.
I agree with having a short sentence like "The ethnic composition of Transylvania before the Hungarian conquest is disputed, see Origin of the Romanians", nothing more. Squash Racket (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Leaving a link in case someone would take the above "discussion" seriously: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonaparte/Archive.
Squash Racket (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Territory —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.49.188.146 (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"The territories of medieval Hungary were second to the Holy Roman Empire and its population was the third largest in Europe." - deffinitely not a truth! Kingdom of Catilia, France, Lithunania were larger and with more inhabitants. It iis mybe only a part on nationalistic mythology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.49.188.146 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Untitled

Hah, what about Cisleithania? That article should be also merged into Austrian Empire!?? Cisleithania was a name of the Austrian part (The Kingdoms and States represented in the Imperial Council) of Austria-Hungary. Transleithania was an term for the Hungarian part (Lands of the Crown of St. Stephen represented by Hungary) of Austria-Hungary. This article shouldn't be merged into Kingdom of Hungary. nn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.84.67 (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you please clarify? The Kingdom of Hungary was founded in 1000, not 1867. Squash Racket (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, the next time you readd information from a law, which has not even applied to the Kingdom of Hungary (which everybody can see right in the first sentence of the law), and which is no "constitution", I go directly to the administrators page here or what ever the name of that page. If you are unable to cite correct information from simple normal and well-known laws (like this one), what else can be considered correct in this article? I can create an account but I do not see how that changes the facts here. 195.168.248.71 (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics

Non-magyar nations in Hungary considered the word Hungary to mean multi-nation state. The Magyars considered the word Hungary as synonymous with Magyar, and behaved accordingly. We can blame passivity of our ancestors for not insisting on the distinction; we can blame the A-H Kings on not explaining the meaning of Hungary right at the beginning of the A-H Monarchy. The distinction should, nay, must!, be examined and explained by the linguists, historians and eventually politicians. Until that is done our great and talented Magyar nation will continue to suffer under unnecessary illusions. Charles K. Hatvani charles794@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.255.163 (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. The terminology is creating big difficulties when discussing. There should be a paragraph in the beginning of the article about the terminology used. Specially because in all other articles (e.g. Habsburg Monarchy) the term "Lands of the Hungarian Crown" is used to differ from Hungary proper and in this article it is impossible to see the difference between the states that the High Kingdom of Hungary (as supernational and superstate entity) had and the Kingdom of Hungary proper. But there is a vast difference between the lands of the holy crown of st. Stephen and Kingdom of Hungary - but here this fact is totally neglected. Also, coat of arms has changed at least 5 times in the history, but only one is shown without denomination of time. The article is misleading. Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

Too many fact listed in the article are disputed:

"The form of government was changed from Monarchy to Republic" - this is not true

"The German name (Königreich Ungarn) was used from 1849 to the 1860s, and the Hungarian name (Magyar Királyság) was used in the 1840s, and again from the 1860s to 1918." - needs a reference, I believe it was not exactly like that

"The new borders set in 1920 by the Treaty of Trianon, ceded 72% of the historically Hungarian territory of the Kingdom of Hungary to the neighbouring states. The beneficiaries were Romania, and the newly formed states of Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. This left more than 3,5 million ethnic Hungarians outside the new borders, contrary to the terms laid out by US President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, which meant to honour the ethnic makeup of the territories." - this a view of hungarians, but it is again not true, for example Czechoslovakia was not a neighbouring state. Better wording would be that the Kingdom of Hungary fell apart. The number - 3.5 million is not right as well, a good number with a source is needed.

"Kingdom of Hungary between 1920-1944" This was a different state, not a successor of the big Kingdom of Hungary, it should be described in a different Wikipedia page."

"Magyar Királyság" should not be above Kingdom of Hungary.

Bratislava should not be listed as Pozsony.

Latin should be listed as a first language as it was an official language during most of the time of existence of KH.

Milanmm (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you Milanmm. Especially about the continuity of the state after WWI, which does not exist but the editors are so persistant in reverting everithing that is not pro "big Hungary" oriented that it is a shame for Wikipedia project. The claim that the same state existed all the time would be equivalent to stating that present day Turkey is descendant of Ottoman empire. I allready tried to change a lot of nonsences but they keep reverting them even though it is totally contradictory to at least a dozen of other articles. - Regarding existance of Kingdom instead of "province" of Croatia and Slavonia that is written in this article, I checked all other languages' versions that I speak or at least understand (German, Croatian, Slovenian, Serbian, Italian, Spanish, Russian and French) and they all say Kingdom. That tells more about intention and atitude of the writters than about the truth of english version of this article. No commentHammer of Habsburg (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well as an editor of Hungarian articles, but not this one in particular, I am not "pro" or "anti" "Big Hungary" (whatever that is, a search for that does not bring up any articles closely related to the Kingdom of Hungary). I presume being English means I would be excluded from having an opinion, and only Croatians, Slavonians, Romanians and perhaps Turks, Austrians, and Serbs would? On the other hand, I try to establish the facts as best I can (which is often not very well), and convey them as best I can to the interested, intelligent, but uninformed reader, which I think is a fair assessment of a reader coming to ANY article in ANY encyclopaedia.

Can you say please who "they" are who keep reverting your changes of "nonsences"? Can you perhaps point to discussions at the talk page here where you have discussed them? I am interested to know about this, because I will shortly be editing some articles which will bring in the Kingdom of Hungary, but if this is a battleground I am not going to bother to start with it, I have had enough with editing battles of the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 right now, without wanting to engage in a meta-battle.

I am also having a lot of trouble sorting out location maps for the Kingdom of Hungary, and it would also be of great help if you should wish I wrote the county (comitatus) names in Latin if you regard that as the primary language we should use instead of, say, Hungarian. It probably should be listed as a language used, but I doubt it was more used in the Kingdom of Hungary than, say, in England, France or, er, Rome, during the same time frame. I will be pleased to find contrary evidence.

Ave, requiescat in pace omnes. Si Trew (talk) 23:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

On a couple of points: I agree that Kingdom of Hungary (i.e. in English) should appear before Magyar Királyság. This is the English Wikipedia.

I disagree that Bratislava should not be listed as Poszony. If that is the Hungarian name, and this is an article about Hungary, it should be listed with the Hungarian name.

My general view on this subject of place names that vary between languages, or are in different countries than they once were, is to put the current place name first in its current language (i.e. in general the article name on Wikipedia), with alternate names in parentheses (i.e. Bratislava (Hungarian: Pozsony). BUT if the place named was at the time referred to in the article known by another name, instead put that first i.e. Pozsony (now Bratislava, Slovakia). In either case, put both, but put the more applicable first, and in this case that means Pozsony in my opinion. In any case only link to the current name, since the other is usually a redirect to the current name, and if both are linked it can only be at best redundant or worse confuse the reader. (Incidentally I don't see any need outside of articles about Austria-Hungary to put Pressburg, the German name.)

So, under that general principle, I would say that Poszony was the better choice to put first, because it is used in the context of the Arpád Dynasty, and presumably during that time it was not known as Bratislava. I suppose we could put it in Latin instead. I note, by the way, at the Bratislava article, the lead starts "Bratislava (German: Pressburg, Hungarian: Pozsony), which hardly suggests the Croatians are denying it was (or is still by Hungarians) called Pozsony, so why should we at a Hungarian article? BUT, it should say Bratislava also, i.e. Poszony (now Bratislava, Slovakia). There is no point linking Pozsony, which redirects to Bratislava anyway. I don't know, in any case, what it is doing in the list of capitals in the side box when there is no other mention of it in the main article text except in a battle in 1052. I presume that the information is missing or covered in other articles, but I don't know where.

I presume by a "first language" you mean one spoken by people as their mother tongue. While I believe this is true of Latin for some of the Hungarian nobility, I do not believe it was the common vernacular for much, if any, of the existence of the Kingdom. Si Trew (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Misinformation:

""The territories of medieval Hungary were second to the Holy Roman Empire and its population was the third largest in Europe." - Absolutely not true- Kingdom of Hungary had only 3.5 mil. inhabitants. France, Polish-Lithuanian union, Castilia etc. were larger states with more inhabitants. Attilaxx (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Jegellonians were after Sigismund and Corvinus. sigismud was in no case a non-dynastic ruler. He was a mamber of a strong House of Luxemburg and incorporated the Kingdom of Hungary in a group of states and provinces ruled yb this dynasty. In general- the article is full of mistakes and in many aspects is based on views from about 1900. Attilaxx (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-adequate romanticism

Friends, try to be less sentimental.

"brilliant campaigns of the great Hungarian general, Artúr Görgey"???- As I know Kossuth was critical to Gorgey

A story on 72 hussars who stoped 3 regiments is great example of a valor of Hungarionas, but it does not belong to the general article on the Kingdom of Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hungarus7 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For Quorilla:

Thanks for your changes. But I think that it is necessary to distinguish between Slavic languages and therefote it si better to itemize them,For exampkle Bulgarians and Polish do not pay attention to a difference between the modern Hungary and the historical Kngdom of Hungary. the Czech language (but outside of the Kingdom) has the most detailed classification: Uhersko- the Kingdom of Hungary Uhry - proper "inner" Hungary (modern Hungary and Slovakia and Ruthenia) Madarsko- today modern Hungarioan or Magyar ethnical state

In the Russian language there is no difference between the Kingdom of Hungary and the modern Hungary (There is not any "Ugria" and "Madaria") but sometimes Russians distinguish between "Vengri" - all inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary (members of political "natio hungarica") and "Madari" - members of the hungarioan etnical antion. I think that my original version was more exact. Also a mention of different points of views on the character of the Kingdom (was it a mulitnational state in which all ethnical groups wetre os should have been equal and forming together one political but not ethnical nation ("natio hungarica", "Uhri", "Ugri") OR the primary Magyar national ethnical state with some ethnical minorities???)is necessary. It was a question for which people used to kill each other (1848-1849, 1914-1919)and it was the amin reason of the desintegration of the Kingdom in 1918. Attilaxx (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

For Quorilla:

The main argument of Hungarian historians about the representation of Hungarioans which should be higher than 30-40% before Ottoman wars is that the central parts of the Kingdom were more populated than perpherial ones (see: [14]). But even if Slovaks, Serbians, Croatians, Romanians accept it, they argue that Slavs (some proto-Slovaks and proto-Croatians) lived in high numbers also in the areas of Matra, Tokaj, Balaton etc. Have you sometime seen a bottle of Tokaj? :-) What terminology is used? :-) "Sedmputnovy?" (It means Slavic) What would you tell about this map? :-) [15]

That must be a joke. Qorilla (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The first at least informational sources on the ethnic compostions emerged only in about 1750. I am afraid that all discussions of etnical compositions in 10-17th centuries are based mostly on only nationalistic wishes and dreams. :-)))Skeletons can not answer this questions. :-)The same disuccions existed also in the case of the Czech-German dispute on the ethnical composition of Bohemie in 12-18the centuries, Russian -Ukrainian- Polish dispute on who lived in Ukrainein 13-18th centuries etc. :-)

For "natio hungarica" see: How Hungarian was Liszt?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilaxx (talk • contribs) 10:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It must be a joke or we need to recitate all of the foreign words taken along the time? By this mean: The word bödön what was taken from the arabian language by Turkish help, mean Arabia or Turkey or those ethnic groups were the "part" of the Kingdom of Hungary? Ofc not. Turks were occupiers. I hope you are understand this Attilaxx. Skulo (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not only a joke, dear Qorilla :-)

Forum-like discussion, per WP:TALK, talk pages are not general forums
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See this map of the Haplogroup R1a distribution in Euroepan populations: [16] It shows that modern Hungarioan are almost fully "integrated" in a group of Slavic peoples. "Genetically" they are Slavic people speaking non-Slavic language and with a non-Slavic political and ethnical identity and tradition. It means that in one current moment in history (In 10th century? in 15th century? I do no know and do not try to guess) the bacil population of the Carpatian Basin (with exception of Transylvania) were Slavs and original (nomadic) Magyars were only a small -but maybe politically dominat- group among them. But a group which was capable to assimilate them. The situation in which relatively small group of conquerors (which is in social dominat position) assimilated the more numerous populations is very well known in ethnology(so called assimilation from up to down). Even in the English language we have about 30-40% of French words- as a result of 1066 Norman conquest- and the amount of Frenchspeaking knights was very limited! Another argument is "demografic": The amount of nomadic Magyars having invaded Carpathian Basin (cca 900 A.d.) was aabout 200 000. The transfer of abigger group is impossible in 9th century. In 1100 the kingdom of Hungary had about 1.5- 2 mil. inhabitants. It is not realistic to expect that a group of 200 000 people in the existing conditions could have multiplied itself to for example 0.8- 1.0 mil.people. Therefore: a) either "real ethnical Hungarians" in 1100 represented only a minority of the populatien and inhabited cca 10-20 % of the whole territory of the Kongdom b) or they were dispersed as a minority over the whore territory but nowhere represented a real majority c) or they were in 1100 mixed with Slavs to extend which enabled them to create a "core" of the population. Probably the all three sittuations occured in a combination of factors which were favorable for a development of collective identity based on tradition of nomadic Magyars. At least on territory of the today Hungary on which original nomadic Magyars as conquerors replaced the class of local Slavic and Frankish warriors. (In middle Ages the identity of local gentry was a crucial factor for ethnical awareness of the whole population). Probably, as the Principality of Nyitra (see: [17]) was in 920-1000 ruled by different branch of Arpad dynasty, and was fully integtrated in the Kingdom only in 1163 and its political development in that time was specific, the local class of Slavic warriors was not replaced by ethnical Magyars and as itself was a basis for a development of Slovak national identity. You may comapre it with an English-Welsh relation or a realations in Central Asia where original Iranian population was first conquered by Turks and after a several centuries of development and bilingualism 4 modern nations speak Tukrish languages and one (Tajiks) Indoeropean language. Antropologicaly Kazakhs and Kirgizes are a mixture between europieds and mongoloids, but Turkish speaking Uzbeks and Turkmens are mostly europoids- it means that geneticall thy are descendens of Saks, Tocahr, Bactrians etc. but "lingustically" of ancient Turks. Attilaxx (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Your text is a bit long for me to read right now, but according to your section-title giving manners and your edits you are not quite neutral and unbiased in this question, to say at least. I'll read it later. Qorilla (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC) I'm not a historian and did not devote too much time to do original research in the topic and only read interpretations. I can say I'm not convinced by your lines, and would rather write about something else. I don't understand this Hungarophobia of our neighbors. They seem to devote their lives to disprove the origins and deprive Hungary of its history, but I don't see what they want to achieve by it. Even if someone found that Hungarians have Slavic ancestries mixed in, what would it prove? Does it constitute an excuse to hate Hungarians? I actually don't see how this whole hate-campaign is favourable to them. What being Hungarian meant through centuries (in linguistic, genetic and cultural-affiliation dimensions) is obscure and has changed several times throughout history. I don't see why you may feel you can do harm (if that is the intention) to current Hungarians if you prove that Hungarians were more held together by language than genetics. Or if their culture had broader effects, even outside Hungarian-speakers. Whatever your intentions are with trying to prove these points, I think they are substantially mistaken. All in all, Hungarians created and maintained a state in (for the most part the geographically united area of) the Carpathian Basin for more than 1000 years under their name, and had a kingdom in which there were also other ethnicities, who could live in peace for most of the time until the French idea of nationalism in the late 1700s stirred up the relations in the basin. And now people try to prove their visioned 'superiority' over Hungarians by digging in history in a paranoid way to find excuses to their hate, as they can hardly find any reason in the present. Qorilla (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Dear Qorilla, There is no reason to uinderstand the presented opinion as an "attack" o Hungarains. I think that history of Middleages should not play an importan role in relations between nations today. The "war of historical map" (who was the first and how great a large was his state in some selected period)as we know it from Balkanian penisula and from caucasus is absurd. I would be the last man who would deny the existence of the Hungarians but every nation started from "small origins" (small group of people) and it is not any shame. The great nations in apst usually were sucdesfull in integration of other peoples in their society and politcal structure. If I wrote that a small group of nomads led by Arpads in 10-11th centuries united under their rule several Slavic and Romanian principalities and together with original populations formes a new relatively big ethnical nation and a quite large but multiethnical kingdom, I am expresiing an admiration!!! :-))) On the other hand sometime I can not understand why modern Hungarioasn so intensively deny the contribution of Slavs and Romanians in a proces of forming of Hungarioan ethnical nation and the statahood of the Kingdom of Hungary. It looks like a "painfull point" of the Hungarian collective identity which sometime seem to be based on emotional nationalsitic interpretation of history typicall for the period of 1830-1900 when national myths of "origin of our nation" were formed? (with an intention to prove the ethnical continuity for every Euroepan nation from Dark ages and if possible, in untached form) In Hungarioan language the names for the tree top position in the feudal Kingdom of Hungary are: kiraly [18], nadorispan ([19]) and [20], tarnok (king, marshall, camerarius-kral, nadvorni zupan, tavernik,(tovar means goods)). Does not it mean- for example- that a politicla tradiotn of Slavs living in the Carpatian Basin before 896 played a more significant role in building the new Kingdom of Hungary than today modern hungarians are willing to accept? Shall not modern Hungarioan neighbours thint that Hungarians tend (I am using your words)"...to disprove their origins and deprive them of their history"? For example an effort to prove that sometime in one given moment in history (before Ottoman occupation- in semi-mythical time from which almost no records on ethnicity of agtrarian people ere rpeserved) can be regarded as a part of this effort? I am not sure that modern etnical Hungarioans are the only heirs of the political tradition of the Kingdom of Hungary. For Slovaks, Ruthenians, Croatioans, Serbians etc the is not not any direct link (mental, linguistic) between the Kingdom of Hungary and modern Magyar (Hungarioan) ethnical nation, which would bw stronger tahn between this Kingdom and for example Slovaks. Just a procest of "nationalisation" and nationalism after French revolution (as you remarked) esulted in the effort to give to the Kingdom of Hungary an "ethnical" character (It was accompanied by an effort to "prove" that it had it sometime in the past). The idea of magyaristion [21] and the superiority of ethnical Hungarians (Magyars) to Romanians, Serbians, Slvoaks etc was regarded yb them as "treason" and unjust attempt to destroy them as antions. Of course it triggered a strong anti-hungarioan sentiment. This sentiment has lasted practically up to now becase Hungarians were not able (unlike Germans after 1945) to go through some mental and moral catharsis and to tell thier neighbours something in this way: "We are sorry, Magyarisation was a mistake and crime, Trianon was a just punishment and we dont dream on any revision of borders" :-))) And what is a reality? :-)))) [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] IF you are asking on Hungarophoby, please, try to be a little emphatic with your neighbours and try to imagine what would by ypur reaction :-) They arwe not less proud than Hungarians (they have the same hisotrical tradition) and do not think being inferior to them :-))) Too long? Attilaxx (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia, Kingdom of Slavonia and Kingdom of Dalmatia

These Kingdoms were newer part of Kingdom of Hungary. This is a major mistake and false interpretation. The named Croatian Kingdoms and the Kingdom of Hungary had the same King, that is true. Therefore, the map of the Kingdom of Hungary is historical falsificate. The map shown represents all the Kingdoms that were ruled by one king.

Croatia remained separate triune kingdom with its own parliament, taxation and laws. That does not seem to be the same kingdom for many.

And King of triune Croatian Kingdom (K. of Croatia, K. of Dalmatia and K. of Slavonia) was coronated in the city of Biograd na moru and not in Budapest. And the oficial name of the common King was "King of Hungary, Dalmatia and Croatia" - NOT only King of Hungary!!!

Therefore: I protest against this falsification of historical map of Kingdom of Hungary as it includes Kingdom of Croatia and Dalmatia. Kingdoms of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia were never part of the Kingdom of Hungary as the king himself did not claim such things. He was king of these separate kingdoms.

It is stated that in this article "provinces of Croatia and Slavonia were autonomous". That is also a falsificate. Neither they were provinces nor they were autonomous but they were SEPARATE kingdoms. So states and the title of the common King that was crowned SEPARATELY in Croatian city Biograd na moru for the Croatian crown.

One other issue - Croatian and Hungarian crown were united under one king in 1102 and not any earlier as stated in the article.

Please, check the coat of arms of the kingdom (2/3 are croatian simbols - kingdom of Croatia-red-white chess field; three golden lion heads in blue background - kingdom of dalmatia and under this coat of arms of kingdom of Slavonia). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wappen_Ungarische_L%C3%A4nder_1867_(Mittel).png

Hope I succeded to solve some ignorance that is present in this article, not to go to other issues. Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dalmatia was in the "Austria" half of Austria-Hungary so Dalmatia is not an issue here. Croatia-Slavonia was autonomous to a large degree apart from handling it's own affairs, there was even a Croatian delegation as sitting MPs in the Parliament of Hungary. But your English is not very good so maybe you are confused. Dalmatia was not united with Croatia-Slavonia during this time, but Dalmatia was completely separate. Hobartimus (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Hobartimus (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for the compliment regarding my english. The article is not about Austria-Hungary, but about Hungary. Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was created later in history. These kingdoms were separate from each other throughout bigger part of it's history. There is big problem with equalising the term "Lands of the st. Stephen's crown" and Kingdom of Hungary - and that is the biggest problem with misinterpreation of the term "Kingdom of Hungary". Kingdom of Dalmatia was also part of this crown in earlier history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammer of Habsburg (talk • contribs) 23:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hungary was recognized as Kingdom in 1000 A.D., without any connection to Croatia, Slavonia or Dalmatia. Anything you write about Croatia only applies to a later part of history and not since the foundation. But there is a separate issue, I don't understand the stuff regarding Dalmatia. During what years can we talk about Dalmatia being included? Wasn't this a very short time? Hobartimus (talk) 15:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that at the time of evaluation of Hungary to Kingdom it had nothing to do with Croatian Kingdoms. But, the article is about the whole history of existance of the Kingdom of Hungary (which, according to the map provided, includes Cro kingdoms). Therefore, in medievial terminology, Kingdom of Hungary was used only for Hungary proper, excluding Croatian Kingdoms and Fiume, that had its own sovereignity. I suggest to use the term "High Kingdom of Hungary" (that was used at that time) for the period after 1102, when Croatian kingdoms were included in the crown of the same king but remained separate kingdoms with its own crowns and parliament. The existance of parliament in Cro kingd. (that had the power to elect the king, as it did in 1527) and separate systems (taxation, legislation, education, nobleman rights) in Croatian kingdoms leads to big if not absolute sovereignity. Also "the lands of the crown of st. Stephen" is good term. Therefore it is good to mention this issue in the introduction to avoid any ambiguity. Ofcourse that all these kingdoms were ruled by the same king, but that is where all things common end.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 22:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

- As long as i remember, souverenity owns political(inner and outer) and military and govermental(where is the kingdom's central city) means. By that time when those territories ruled by one king the political leadership was in one hand as the militarial too. What means there wasn't full autonomy for any applied terriotiries.

- The Hungarian kings were not crowned in Budapest by that time, but in Székesfehérvár. Skulo (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

First line: if it was one state, as you claim, how is it possible that borders of the kingdom of Croatia and Kingdom of Hungary proper changed several times during the period discussed. Croatian army was never in hands of Hungary but of the King of Croatia and Hungary. The title of King was double, once king of Hungary and second king of Croatia. - that is very easy to check as he was crowned in Croatian city Biograd na moru for the Croatian throne. You can argue, with the same deduction method, that Hungary proper did not have authonomy as it was ruled by the Croatian King.

Second line: you have a point.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Ban was the ban of the Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia. It WAS one entity. Read the title of the ban in the Croatian-Hungarian agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian%E2%80%93Hungarian_Agreement , article 53.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Official languages

In the Kingdom of Croatia, Dalmatia and Slavona, besides Latin, languages spoken and used in writing were Croatian, Latin and Byzantine Greek.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You can find the article of Croatia-Slavonia, but there is no Dalmatia in that article only Croatia and Slavonia. Dalmatia was not united with Croatia-Slavonia during this time, but Dalmatia was completely separate. Hobartimus (talk) 23:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Croatia-Slavonia is separate one, but if you include a map of Kingdom of Hungary (better say lands of the crown of st. Stephen) including these kingdoms, then you must include the languages spoken in these kingdoms as well. I doubt that there was hungarian or german language spoken in these kingdoms.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"Province" of Croatia

Can someone explain me why the term province instead of Kingdom is used for Croatia? Croatia had its own crown and every king that wanted to carry that title had to be crowned for the croatian throne in Croatia. I dont see any good reason for this expression. I cant find article province of Croatia as well... Toroko, I am waiting for your reply, otherwise I will undo your vandalism, as you called my revision that had the purpose to make it correct, not vandalise. But I am not a vandal as you are as I am inviting you to give arguments about your change. And also, waiting.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Toroko, if you don't represent a valid historical source where the term "province of Croatia" is used, I will consider you to be a falsificator and a liar. Valid source is any document created by parliament of any of the Kingdoms inside lands of the st. Stephen or the King himself. Every that I have found states that Kingdom of Croatia, K. of Slavonia and K. of Dalmatia were royal states i.e. Kingdoms, not your provinces.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 02:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Croatia was a province, i put the references in the article. There wasn't any Kingdom of Croatia after 1091, because Croatia was conquered by Hungary. You accused me of being a vandal, but truly you are the vandal. Please stop vandalising the article. Toroko (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your sources are all magazines. You did not provide a single valid source. I will repeat, valid source is ANY document that was official in that country created by any parliament or King himself. These documents say KINGDOM. source no. 12: says country, then Queen of that country - that means kingdom. source no. 13 nothing about province again....so much effort for nothing. I advise you not to read some stupid magazines written by autors of remote nationality about it. Read official documents that are widely available such as pragmatic sanction of 1712 or parliament (sabor) of cetingrad in 1527 (http://flagspot.net/flags/hr-ka-cg.html) or croatian sabor of 1848. (http://staff.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect07.htm) or Croatian-Hungarian agreement from 1868. It is always stated KINGDOM. Whether it was conquered it is subject to a debate after you read these papers properly. For some of these documents there are articles even in wikipedia.

And please, dont contaminate Wikipedia with your cheap sources like those magazines. I repeat, why dont you put a link to province of Croatia-Slavonia. And yes, Kingdom of Dalmatia was also part of triune Kingdom, for your information. CheersHammer of Habsburg (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Look at the title of the Habsburg King, Croatian Kingdoms are listed separately. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HabsburgHammer of Habsburg (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I accept the sentence provided by Hobratimus. But why did you remove the Croatian language from the info box? It was official in Croatia/Slavonia and used in courts, schools, the laws of Croatia-Slavonia were written in Croatian. Even common laws regulating both Croatia-Slavonia and Hungary were written in Croatian. It was language of Croatian parliament and official legislation language in this part of so complicated monarchy.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms

The coat of arms used in the article is only one of many that were used in the Kingdom. The section about the coat of arms was obviously done by someone who isn't very familiar with the history or by someone with bad intentions. I suggest to provide all the coats of arms used or to give the timespan when was the provided coat of arms used. Otherwise, this article is misleading in many ways.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Connection too the article Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen

I do not understand the existance of the article in the subject if it is synonim to the Kingdom of Hungary, according to full name of the state provided in the upper right corner of the article. If the article is describing only the Kingdom of Hungary inside the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen, then this name should not be used as the full name of the article. Escpecially the coat of arms. The coat of arms provided in the article Kingdom of Hungary is not the same as the coat of arms provided in the article The lands of the Crown. But, according to the full name of Kingdom of Hungary, this is the same state entity. Dubious.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That article seems to be falsifying sources to a great extent. For example it cites the 1911 Britannice in it's opening sentence.[27]

"The kingdom of Hungary in its widest extent, or the " Realm of the Crown of St Stephen," comprises Hungary proper (Magyarorszdg), with which is included the former grand principality of Transylvania, and the province of Croatia-Slavonia. This province enjoys to a large extent autonomy, granted by the so-called compromise of 1868. The town and district of Fiume, though united with Hungary proper in respect of administration, possess a larger measure of autonomy than the other cities endowed with municipal rights. Of the total area of the kingdom Hungary proper has 108,982 sq. m. and Croatia-Slavonia 16,420 sq. m. In the present article the kingdom is treated mainly as a whole, especially as regards statistics. In some respects Hungary proper has been particularly dealt with, while special information regarding the other regions will be found under Croatia-Slavonia, Transylvania and Fiume. "

So according to that article which is cited there the division is Hungary proper - Croatia- Slavonia - Fiume. Hobartimus (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

So you are definitely wrong in that Kingdom of Hungary is "inside" "Lands of..." Hungary Proper is inside Kingdom of Hungary. Hungary proper and Croatia-Slavonia make up the Kingdom of Hungary but only after 1868, this is when Croatia-Slavonia was created. Earlier it's a different name, different story. Remember that Kingdom of Hungary had nothing to do with Croatia in say 1050. Hobartimus (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

OK but then the full name "Lands.." is not correct i.e. it is the full name of the entity after 1868. That must be explained because (now) the reader may get the impression that the full name "Lands.." was used ever since and that it is a synonim during the whole history.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kingdom of Hungary/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The "Kingdom of Hungary" article contains some historical inaccuracies: After the battle of Mohacs, Hungary becama part of the Ottoman Empire, not the Habsburg one, for almost 150 years

Last edited at 13:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2