this is nuts! The common voting system wasn't widespread across Europe til the early 20th century ... --fz22 22:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the voting system in KOH was so "democratic", how you explain the fact that Hungarians that participated in population with 54.5% participated in voting with 60.2%, while Romanians that were second largest group in the Kingdom participated in population with 16.1%, but only with 9.9% in voting? PANONIAN (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is not unusual even today ... your datas shows nothing. Take a look over Romanian elections eg from 1996, 2000 --fz22 20:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To look what? I have no data about Romanian elections. PANONIAN (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a +/- 5% deviation in participants number between the Romanian majority and the Hungarian minority population in Transylvania. There are regions where the percent of Hungarian participants was higher and vice versa ... --fz22 07:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the Hungarian voting system was based on property status, degree of education in the 19th century. The first modern style election in Hungary was held in 1918 (when women got the right to vote) BTW political feminism: they were forbidden from voting just to Magyarised them ... according to your logic: yes ;) ?!? --fz22 07:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question of elections in Romania is certainly a proper subject of some other article, not of this one. Also, I would agree that not entire voting system in KOH served Magyarization policy, but much of it did. PANONIAN (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you as an example to illustrate that such a think could happen even today and it has nothing to do with magyarization. --fz22 08:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the external link, the part on elections. No further comments are necessary. When I have the time, I will take over quotes, anyway, because I see that otherwise you will deny every single sentence here... And the situation in other European countries was not comparable to the fascist conditions in the KoH in the late 19th century and early 20th century whatever you say, And for your information, there were periods when the Slovaks (some 2 million persons) had exactly 0 deputies (so much for numbers) in the parliament. This cannot happen in other countries other than countries in rain forests, Nazi Germany etc. Juro 10:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so let's see some exact datas: In Transylvania there were around 25,000 voters which number increased slowly to 150,000 until 1914. As i mentioned before the voting system was based on property status thus the urban population (100,000) was represented by 23 congressman and the population of the old counties (~1,200,000) had only 20 representatives in the Parliament. Thus 25% of the Saxons (we are talking about the adult male population), 20% of the Magyars and only 9% of the Romanians had the right to vote. The Romanians thoght that this is the "biggest dishonour to them" (as it is stated in a Romanian Memorandum from 1882) which is absolutely true. But in accordance to the hungarian public opinion from Transylvania "the system was favourable to Romanians but they just cannot exploit it" which also could be the truth considering every single electoral district (in Romanian teritories consisted of 800 voters, 1400 in Szekelyland). Things are more subtle than you think. --fz22 12:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is incredible that a person unable to write one correct sentence about history teaches me about "subtility", I am talking about really happened and not about what someone has declared or not declared. Read the external link. And as for the subitility: the Slovaks had 0 to 4 duputies in the 420 members parliament (not 4% but 4 persons), and in practise they were prevented from voting on ethnic grounds. That is the only thing that matters. Not only the voting system was bad, there were no free elections even at that bad level. The non-free elections had both political and magyarisation reasons and they must and will be mentioned here. Juro 13:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should make a clear distinction between the post Ottoman war re-colonisation and the period after 1867 ... The first has nothing to do with Magyarization, it was just an attempt to repopulate an once prosperous territory --fz22 22:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no so "clear" distinction between colonisation before 1867 and after this year. The 18th century colonisation had 2 goals: 1. one was to increase number of inhabitants in the area, 2. the second one was to populate area with "certain ethnic elements". My source (book number 5 in references) claim that Hungarian duke Gražalković created colonisation plan with purpose that "Bačka gain Hungarian ethnic character". Fact is that Magyarization did not started in 1867 but in 1000 AD when KOH was created, but it was most intense in 1867-1918 period. That however does not mean that we should not write about events in other time periods. PANONIAN (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but that "certain ethnic element" was definetely not Hungarian. Hungary cleared of Ottomans became part of the Austrian Empire by right of armed conquest so thay were reponsable for colonisation until 1867. Plus you cannot compare such a vaste repopulation happened in the 18th century (millions of new settlers arrived) and settling down a few thousand of Szekelys (from Bukovina) in Vojvodina (around 1880) ... --fz22 08:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "certain ethnic element" was both, German and Hungarian. Austrian authorities have settled Germans in the area, but the local Hungarian landowners have settled Hungarians. The Hungarian duke Gražalković had clear Magyarization intentions when he settled Hungarians in his possessions. And I would not say that only "few thousand of Szekelys" settled in the area. Much more Hungarian colonists settled there. See these numbers: in 1880-1900 period, ordinary population growth in the KOH was +10.3%. Now, let compare what was ordinary population growth of Serbs and Hungarians in the same time period in the cities of Vojvodina: Serb population growth was -19.5%, while Hungarian was +105.2%. What that tell you about both, (Hungarian) colonization and (Serb) emigration? PANONIAN (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, do you know at all what a population growth of +105.2% means? Let just say that it is five times larger than the current population growth of Albanians in Kosovo (which is about +20%, and which is largest population growth in Europe!!!) I think no further comment is needed about this colonization. PANONIAN (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire history of lands later known as Vojvodina is about colonization.

14.th century -the Serb refugees settled in South Hungary.

15.th century -ditto.

16.th century -the Turks settled the Serbs in they elayets (former South Hungary).

1690 -the Austrians settled the Serbs.

1739 -ditto.

after 1718 -the Austrians settled the Germans.

18.th century -the first Hungarian settlers (and Slovak, Rusyn), and silent colonization from south and east.

First half of 19.th century -silent colonization of mostly Hungarians and Germans, and leakage from south.

Until 1914. -mostly Hungarian settlers.

Between two wars -Serbian colonists (dobrovoljci & others).

1941 -Hungarian settlers from Bukovina.

1945 -Serbian and Montenegrin colonists were settled in former German towns villages and houses.

Between 1948 and 1990 -silent colonization, mostly from Bosnia.

From 1990 -three waves of colonization 1991-92, 1995, 1999.

And what is next? Bendeguz 21:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, name Vojvodina dates from the 9th century, but that is another subject. Of course you forget to start your story with Hungarian colonization in the 10th century (in what was then South Slavic-inhabited land). And most important thing is that since this article discuss Magyarization, only colonizations relevant for the subject should be discussed here. However, you are right in one thing: Magyarization via colonization in fact started in the 10th century (not in 18th), thus something about this early colonizations could be said too. PANONIAN (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian princes magyarizing to the left and right in a time when the Hungarian language is not allowed to be an official language by the Habsburgs. This article is getting more and more exciting as it develops. Perhaps you should also consider including a section on Harry Potter.... Alphysikist 20:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Magyarization had many aspects, and it were not Austrian princes that Magyarized land by colonization, but ethnic Hungarian land owners. PANONIAN (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hungarian landowners?!? Festetich, Grassalkovich (president of the Neoconquista Comitee), Pallavicini, Odescalchi, Keglevich, Waldeck, Bissingen, Baldacci, Seckendorf, Sina, Harrucker, Kollonich, Carafa(you know his story with "Ex lacrimis Hungarorum" brought to justice for his anti-Hungarian crimes), Savojai Eugen? and many other imperial oficers, subofficers, speculators, German, Greek, Croat, Serb ("in comitatu non de comitatu") "cowboys" got lands for a few penny while former Hungarian landowners have been robbed ...--fz22 07:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I speak about two landowners: Antal Grassalkovich (Antal is a Hungarian name, no matter of his surname) and Imre Csáky (who have both, Hungarian name and surname). PANONIAN (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just clap my hands when I see your paragraphs PANONIAN... The real shame is not what happened 150 years before (if it happened at all, it is disputed), when the morals and thinking about democracy was, well at least "disputable" again WORLDWIDE, not only in former Hungary. The real problem what happens TODAY in Slovakia for example... when democracy should be more developed. You might found things which happened 100, 200, 500 years before terrifying when you look at it though modern glasses, but a real historian should always keep in mind what was USUAL in the discussed times. I am terrified when I look what happens RECENTLY in our neighbouring countries, which nullifies all former problems. This page is not neutral, but really hungaro-phobic, so it won't deserve any more words, but ignorance. Thanks for the hard work to repack bullshit in scientific package. <PETER> (It's a hebrew-greek-latin name, may I be hungarian then...?)

No, this page just speak the truth about Kingdom of Hungary and I do not see why any decent Hungarian would object that this truth is mentioned. But let me guess: you are not a decent Hungarian, but a Greater Hungarian ultra-nationalist who want to create Greater Hungary again, so therefore you want to hide the truth about Greater Hungary, right? I do not think that it is worth, but can I give you advice? Why you and your "friends" who come here from time to time cannot do something usefull for Wikipedia instead to propagate your nationalistic dreams and insult all your neighbours? I cannot understand this need of the people to be destructive instead of constructive. PANONIAN (talk) 10:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are guessing again, as this whole topic is about guessing. And you are false in your guess, even with me and with the "truth" about the former Kingdom of Hungary. We don't need any more evidence, when we look through your sources at the end of the topic. *Very* conceptional and one-sided in selection. I am surprised you know my "friends", I don't even know you, and the way as you drew this discussion to "personal" instead of staying "objective" (what is far from this topic) shows who guesses better... <Peter>

I am not guessing at all. I simply analysing your words and your behaviour here and one should not be too smart to find a logical conclusion who you are and why you are here. PANONIAN (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Countless personal names were Magyarized in a short period of time, often forcibly or unwittingly." How can a name be "unwittingly" Magyarized? Who is it asserting was unaware of this happening? - Jmabel | Talk 03:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unwittingly is probably not the correct adverb to use, however, Magyarization of personal names was fashionable at the period (we are talking about the era of dualism), just as the Anglicization of many immigrants to America is a common process (like many Asians choosing English first names because their original names are hard to pronounce/or memorize for Americans. One should therefore be aware of the spontaneous aspects of Magyarization (economic progress, social advancement, elevation to middle class). A similar (yet successful) process occurred in France (or still occurring, see Alsace) where at the beginning of the 19th century, only 50% of the population spoke French but by the turn of the 20th century, the country had been successfully homogenized (often by much more drastic means than in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy). One should also not forget the suppression of Gaelic languages in the United Kingdom. Árpád 07:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe person that wrote that sentence wanted to say "Unwillingly" instead of "Unwittingly". PANONIAN (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PANONIAN, you're probably right. And, if so, it was redundant to "forcibly". Árpád, I'm not sure why you think I was arguing with any of the rest of this, my issue was simply over an ill-chosen word. - Jmabel | Talk 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although one of my previous contributions has been deleted as "spam" (I intended none of the sort), I would still wish to keep a reference to the original web source (István Sisa: The Spirit of Hungary) regarding Pan-Slavism: http://hungarian-history.hu/lib/hunspir/hsp40.htm. It is important to note that the closure of the Matica and the Slovak high-schools (where for instance, Hungarian symbols were regularly desecrated by the teachers) happened at the initiative of the local county officials who complained about their subversive activities (The Palatine of Zólyom County, Béla Grünwald complained about contemporary Slovak leaders who were small-time corrupt crooks who embezzled the financial assets of their institutions). After the closure of the Matica, its financial assets were invested for Slovak cultural purposes, like the "Tót Közművelődési Egyesület" (Slovak Cultural Association). One should also not underestimate the reactionary aspect of Pan-Slavism as they wanted to subjugate the whole Central European region to Czarist Russia, and fighting against the Hungarian Revolution and Freedom Fight in 1848-49. Also, the article should emphasise that the Act on Nationalities (1868) was probably the most progressive and tolerant piece of legislation around that time in Europe (it is instructive to compare it with contemporary French practices where the Breton language got virtually annihilated).Árpád 07:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arpad, your post is spam because this is not article about Pan-Slavism. By all means go to Talk:Pan-Slavism and discuss this issue there. Regarding Act on Nationalities from 1868, it did formally gave some rights to nationalities, but as one Serbian historian wrote "the problem with that act was that no single word of it was ever implemented in practice". That was adopted only for outside World to hide the true nature of Magyarization policy in the country. PANONIAN (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The non-implementation of the law is an undisputable fact, not only one Serbian historian wrote it. It is also decribed in the external link, where one can see that even the then Hungarians were surprised when they were confronted with how they permamently violate exactly that law. Secondly, Arpad, you are lying again, and that is the most incredible lie I have heard in this context. The associations founded from the money stolen by the government (because the money was given to the Matica by the emperor and by private persons as a gift and was simply confiscated by the Hungarian government) were explicitely associations, whose official aim was to Magyarise Slovaks (issue Magyar books etc.) Juro 11:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should specify here the direct cause of the emigration. People mainly moved for economic reasons (labour migration) and 25% of the emigrants returned until 1918 (this was stoped after WWI). They mostly left the country to gain enough money to buy a house, land, etc. eg. only 1% of the Romanians left for the Kingdom of Romania ... --fz22 11:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny that economic reasons were important for emigration (that is why ethnic Hungarians also emigrated from the country), but fact is that much more emigrants were non-Hungarians, thus many of them did not emigrated only because of economic reasons, but also because they were oppressed by the state policy. PANONIAN (talk) 15:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an opinion please provide us sources which support your theory. And specify it in the article that x% of the emmigrants were political refugees ... --fz22 08:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source is provided, and the exact percent of non-Hungarian emigrants that emigrated for other reasons than economical could be provided by the statistical calculation which would compare participation of non-Hungarians in the KOH (51.9%) and their participation in emigration (72%). I do not think that such calculation is necessary, because anybody could compare 51.9% with 72% to see the difference. PANONIAN (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please do not try to say that they emigrated from the poor areas, because one of the main centres of emigration (Bačka and Banat) was also the main centre of massive Hungarian colonization. PANONIAN (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panonian this is totally nonsense what you and Kirilović write about Kunard. Maybe you should read more history books. I must award you. Bendeguz 20:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But was it same company? Link you provided say nothing about society in Hungary. PANONIAN (talk) 00:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not play this game with me. You object that name Gražalković is Serbian. But is that a reason to delete entire paragraph??? I do not think so. Serbian books usually translate foreign names into Serbian script, for example English name John Smith would be written as Džon Smit in Serbian text. So, in the book I have, Gražalković is written as Gražalković and I do not know what are the variants of this name in other languages. However, the book say that he was Hungarian duke, so that is what he was, no matter that he had South Slavic surname (this only imply that he was Magyarized South Slav). I do not know more about his function or about his plan. I simply wrote here what my source say (and I quoted that source), so you have no reason to delete entire paragraph. Regarding Bačka, the article here speak about current region of Bačka, not about historical Bacs-Bodrog county. Name of Bacs-Bodrog county is written in Hungarian in this article, and alternative Hungarian name for Bačka is written in the Bačka article. PANONIAN (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's name was Antal Grassalkovich. He was baron, later count. He is famous for his role in settling in thousands of germans to Hungary. I found no confirmation of the theory your source presented. After the Turks were driven out the country lost 60-80% of its inhabitants. This lead to the settling in of germans, serbs and others. Serb refugees already setled in to Bácska and Bánát and more was settled in for military purposes. Ther was not enough Hungarians to populate the country, let alone that organize a huge resettlement to separate and Magyarize a numerous ethnic group. In 1787 only 29% of the population was Hungarian. I suggest the removal this whole paragraph. --Al345 21:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"No confirmation of the theory?" But that is not a theory, you can see quite detailed description of the Hungarian colonization in the 18th century here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarians_in_Vojvodina#History PANONIAN (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no confirmation to this colonization was organized personaly by Grassalkovich or he(or anybody else) had any greater plan to separate Serbians. Indeed many relocation of Hungarians occured during this century(some of them initiated by Grassalkovich) but this was a long process with many different factors to it. Also needs clarification which Grassalkovich are you talking about. The one who played major role in the settlings was a count, his son was a prince. Do you have any dates? --Al345 00:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not see confirmation from you that data from my source is not correct. Regarding which one of them he was, he was "knez", which would be "prince" or "duke" in English ("count" means "grof" in Serbian). PANONIAN (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The inability to present a single confirmation to your source is proving that your source is unreliable. There is no mention of Grassalkovich's plan other than your source. Please present exact dates and names, or remove the pharagraph. --Al345 01:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? But what you think about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Hungarian_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Problem_articles.2Fedit_wars Here is quote from that page: "I've just found sg. about Antal Grassalkovich, he called some German/ Hungarian colonists to Délvidék because it was devastated after the Turkish occupation." I would call that a confirmation for "my" source, dont you agree? This post was made by User:Kelenbp by the way. PANONIAN (talk) 01:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already confirmed that in my previous response: Indeed many relocation of Hungarians occured during this century(some of them initiated by Grassalkovich). Ok, my English was not the best but i think its clear. But there was no great plan by Grassalkovich or anybody else to separate the Serbians. --Al345 01:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One important note about this: the word "plan" in Serbian does not necessary mean some official written document. The word could also to apply to an unofficial plan or idea. My vocabulary claim that Serbian and English words "plan" are the same, thus I do not think that English word apply only to official plans. If that is a case, however, we can change this word into something more suitable perhaps. PANONIAN (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until 1775 every landlord had the right to call anybody to their land, so this wasnt controlled by one man, Grassalkovich wasnt charge of this. Even if he had such a plan(intention, dream) the facts doesnt prove that it was bring into effect. There is absolutely no confirmation for this other than your source.

I also did research on your source and it turned out its neutrality is highly questionable. It is a well know study among historians and it was proven false in many aspects(factual and methodologycal errors, and so on). Since this article mostly based on this source the whole article needs serious revision. --Al345 13:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But Grassalkovich implemented his plan in his own possessions, and furthermore, current ethnic map of Vojvodina show that his plan was partially implemented, showing the largest Hungarian concentration in Bačka exactly near rivers Tisa and Danube: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vojvodina_ethnic2002.jpg Of course, I agree that plan was not implemented fully, but nevertheless it were his intentions. And on what source you made a research? On Dušan J. Popović? He is one of the respectable Serbian historians, and I do not think that your claim about his "factual and methodologycal errors" could be supported by anything else instead your own words. PANONIAN (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. I was refering to Dr. Dimitrije Kirilović. I got lost in the names. But Im surprised someone seriously considered including him(Kirilovic) as a source. So the original source is Popovic. In the article Borislav Jankulov is mentioned. More on Grasskovich later. In the meantime please provide some exact dates if you have any or any other details to help this clarify. --Al345 18:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I already explained this on the talk page. The source for Gražalković plan is not Kirilović, But Borislav Jankulov (listed in article references), who claim that his source is Dušan J. Popović (Problemi Vojvodine, Beograd, 1926). And what is problem with Kirilović as a source? His book mainly speak about Magyarization through education. However, I did found something more about Gražalković plan in this book: Dimitrije Boarov, Politička istorija Vojvodine, Novi Sad, 2001. Boarov claim that his sources for this are Jankulov and Šviker (Johan Šviker, Politička istorija Srba u Ugarskoj, Budimpešta, 1880. - translated and published in Novi Sad in 1999). So, according to Boarov, it was Antal Gražalković who was president of Hungarian chamber ("komora" in Serbian). Boarov also use word colonization plan and repeat what Jankulov said that Gražalković planed colonization of Hungarians in Potisje and Podunavlje with purpose to separate Serbs in Bačka from other Serbs, and therefor he settled Hungarians in Senta (in 1745), Bezdan (in 1748), Kanjiža (in 1760), etc. Here are your dates. :) PANONIAN (talk) 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said his methods are questioned and he was actively propagating demagyarization(demađarizacija) which doesnt help taking him as a NPOV. Your details at least helped to clarify which Grassalkovich are we talking about. --Al345 21:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what were his political views, but these views were simply reflection of the revisionist foreign policy in Hungary in that time. His "propagated demagyarization" was simply kind of call to Magyarized Slavs (who still had Slavic surnames in 1937) to recover their former ethnicity. His "demagyarization" idea did not propagated that "real" Magyars should be demagyarized or oppresed in any way. Nevertheless, his book is a good source of statistical data from the time of the existence of the KOH. PANONIAN (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a problem if you work by using one simple source. If you see this case a little NPOV you could easily find the nationalist way of thinking behind your source. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for POVs and I thought you understand that. In this csae I prefer deleting this paragraph,as it is can not be proven that Grassalkovich has anything to do with Magyarization. Person names should be used in their original forms, similar to geogr. names. The Hungarian name of Bacska region should be mentioned because of two reasons: 1. Half of the region is still in Hungary, 2. at the time of "magyarization" the whole region was a part of Hungary. If you want, we could start to talk about the Serb colonization in the same region in the 1920ies as well...

--kelenbp 00:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"My" source have a capacious bibliography, thus the author said from where he took data about Gražalković plan: D.J. Popović, Problemi Vojvodine, Beograd, 1926. Since D.J. Popović is one of the historians with very good knowledge about history of Vojvodina (he is in fact considered to be the authority in this question), we have no reason to doubt in validity of the data. If you have data that this is not correct, please present this data here. Second thing, original name of Bačka is certainly not Hungarian one. Bačka is clear Serbian name, and there are numerous similar names in Serbian, like Hrvatska, Šajkaška, Timočka (Krajina), etc, etc. The name of Hungarian origin would have some form like Bacssag, not Bacska (which is nothing but Serbian name written with Hungarian script replacing Serbian "č" with Hungarian equivalent "cs"). That is about original names. Furthermore, in the time about this article speak, Hungarian was not official language in the area, but Latin, and only part of the region belonged to KOH (the other part belonged to Tisa-Moriš Military Frontier, which included even Sombor and Subotica). Also the fact that part of the region is now in Hungary does not mean that we should everywhere to use double naming (Bačka/Bacska). The article is named Bačka because larger part of it is in Serbia, and that is the same reason why Baranja article is named Baranya (most of it is in Hungary). When we speak only about Croatian part of Baranja, we can use this name, but if we speak about entire region, then name Baranya should be used because it apply to larger part of the region. Same thing with Bačka. Regarding Serb coloniyation, I do not think that it is a subject of this article. PANONIAN (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the name Bácska is half Hungarian, half Slavic. The original word, Bács (the county) was the personal name of the first ispan/comes who lived in the age Stephen I. According to Hungarian linguists that name is probably of Old Turkic origin, and was derived from the title baya. -ka is obviously Slavic. Zello 22:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is difference between words Bačka/Bácska and Bač/Bács. Name Bačka is 100% Slavic and means "land that belong to Bač". The name of the Bač town is another story and its origin is disputed. According to the Dr. Aleksa Ivić (Istorija Srba u Vojvodini, Novi Sad, 1929), name Bač is of Slavic origin and name of this town dates from the time of the Avars. There are many similar Slavic personal names like Bačeta, Bačić, Bačko, Bačun, etc (Prosvjetin imenoslov, Zagreb, 1984.) The later Bač/Bács county, however, was named after a town, not after a person. Also, see that place named Bač also exist in Macedonia, which confirm its Slavic origin: http://www.flag.de/FOTW/flags/mk-bach.html PANONIAN (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The region was named after the county, the county after the town. According to Hungarian sources the town was named after the first comes, similarly then Pozsony, Csanád etc (always the same pattern: comes->castle->county). I have serious doubts about any town in this region that dates from the time of the Avars. But I accept the possibility that Bács ispán was of Slavic origin as other peers of Stephen and then the name is really Slavic. Or he was a Magyar with an Old Turkic name - we have two linguistic theories. Zello 22:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, origin of word Bač is disputed (as one other source I saw claim), and yes, there are two theories, but the second theory should explain when exactly Bács ispán went to the Republic of Macedonia. :))) PANONIAN (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it shouldn't :) Given this Slavic personal names (Bačeta, Bačić, Bačko, Bačun) the Macedonian village was certainly named after a person bearing one of them. Bács ispán can be a different story. Zello 23:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, and I forgot to consult my auto atlas of former Yugoslavia, according to which 4 places with name Bač exist in the territory of former Yugoslavia, including the one in Bačka, as well as one in Macedonia, one in Slovenia, and one in Montenegro. Places whose name beginning with lettters "bač-" are also numerous, including places named Bačevac, Bačevci, Bačevica, and Bačevići, whose construction confirm that they were created from the personal name Bač, so everything point that Bács ispán is from the same story as well. :) PANONIAN (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, word ispán also came from Slavic župan. :)) PANONIAN (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about this Hungarian villages: Bácsa (Győr county), Bácsfa (next to Samorin), Bácsfalu (Székelyland), Bacska or Bácska (Zemplén county), Kisbács (Transylvania). All of them was populated by Hungarians in 1910. Zello 16:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that is also confirmation for Slavic origin of the name because all these areas that were inhabited by Hungarians in 1910 were previously inhabited by Slavs, while most of the places in former Yugoslavia that have these names were never inhabited by Hungarians. PANONIAN (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to your logic there aren't any Hungarian place names on earth :) Zello 16:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not said that. Of course there are places whose names came from Hungarian language, but that is completelly different subject. We discuss here about origin of one single name. :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bács was used as a Hungarian personal name in the early Árpád era, for example there was one Bács in the Aba family (descendants of King Aba Sámuel). Of course the name can be of Slavic origin - but that's not sure. Nonetheless the above mentioned Hungarian villages should have got their names from Hungarian landowners called Bács. Zello 02:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what about another Hungarian name Ladislaus, which is quite common among Hungarians, but name is nothing else but Slavic Vladislav. :) PANONIAN (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but languages borrow words from each other. That doesn't mean that every village called Szentlászló was populated by Slavs. Zello 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offence for anybody, but it would be interesting that certain nicknames (I will not say which ones) that appear only in certain places could be chechked for sockpuppetry. This is only suggestion, and I will not say the names (but some people will certainly understand my post). As I said, no offence for anybody. :) PANONIAN (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panonian, if you have enough direct or circumstantial evidence to seriously suspect (illegitimate!) sockpuppetry, do please take these to WP:SSP. We don't need sockpuppets here, nor do we want to look upon real contributors as if they were sockpuppets. KissL 08:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is the evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magyarization&action=history Just see when certain nicknames were registered, how many contributions they have and what articles they edit and everything would be clear. This place is full of sockpuppets. :) PANONIAN (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From http://www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF_93/forum93.html

Hungary's 'Near Abroad'

Minorities Policy and Bilateral Treaties

by Hans Binnendijk and Jeffrey Simon

"During the First Republic of the interwar period, Czechoslovakia's major concern was to establish a democratic state and permeate it with Czech ideas. The existence of a Hungarian minority coupled with Hungary's revisionist policies provided the context for denying the Slovaks the federation that they had been promised. Hence, Slovaks saw Hungarians as rivals; and Slovak mythology about the period of forced assimilation after the 1867 Ausgleich was pushed back historically for 1,000 years. The First Vienna Arbitration in 1938 merely confirmed the Slovaks' perceptions of Hungarians as enemies." Alphysikist 12:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to say that Magyarization is a myth? The problem with those who claim this is that they think that World was created in 1910, so according to them 1910 census is alpha and omega for everything. Well, that would not be the case. I will show you the Hungarian source which provide census data for 1880-1910 period and you can see that in the regions such are Transylvania, Slovakia or Vojvodina, Hungarian population highly increased in this time period, in both, the absolute number and procentual participation in population: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hmcb/Tab21.htm In Vojvodina: 265,287 Hungarians in 1880 (22.6% or third largest group after Serbs and Germans), 425,672 Hungarians in 1910 (28.1% or second largest group after Serbs). http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hmcb/Tab25.htm In Burgenland: 11,162 Hungarians in 1880 (4.2%), 26,225 Hungarians in 1910 (9.0%). http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hmcb/Tab14.htm In Transylvania: 1,045,098 Hungarians in 1880 (or 26.1%), 1,658,045 Hungarians in 1910 (or 31.7%). http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hmcb/Tab11.htm In Transcarpathia: 105,343 Hungarians in 1880 (or 25.7%), 185,433 Hungarians in 1910 (or 30.6%) http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hmcb/Tab07.htm In Slovakia: 574,862 Hungarians in 1880 (or 23.1%), 881,320 Hungarians in 1910 (or 30.2%). You can see a high increase of the percent and absolute number of Hungarians in all these regions, much larger than increase of absolute number of other ethnic groups (not to mention their procentual decrease). And this data apply only to small 30-year period. You can guess what would be result of comparison of increase of Hungarian population in 1715-1910 period. So, Magyarization is not a "myth" but pure statistics. PANONIAN (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pasted this paragraph written by Juro from the Slovakization article because it belongs to here according to its content. This doesn't mean that I agree with it, personally I'm sure that it contains exaggerations, but I'm not concerned with it now. Zello 23:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems:

• 1. The paragraph you deleted do not speak about general increase of population in the cities (as you said in your edit summary), but about which ethnic group in the cities increased, and which one decreased, which is pretty relevant for this article.
• 2. The paragraph you added had several problems: "However Hungarian scholars deny the existence of any massive Magyarisation plan and achievment prior to 1880." What exactly they deny? The basic fact that somebody settled Hungarians in the area inhabited by another ethnic group is a clear example of Magyarization of the area. So, what these scholars deny? Do they deny that Hungarians ever settled in the area (which would be against basic historical facts) or they deny something else? Second thing: "an anti-Hungarian germanisation and slavisation plan" A Slavization plan? Please tell me how one land inhabited by 90-98% Slavs could be Slavized? I do not see logic in it, fz. Regarding Germanization plan, it is already mentioned, but its character was not anti-Hungarian. Both, Magyarization and Germanization plans were in fact anti-Slavic. Finally, regarding Antal/Anton Grassalkovich, we really have problem here whether he was Croat or Magyarized Croat or whether he implemented Magyarization or Germanization. Please tell me what exactly your source claim about him? What he Germanized and how? PANONIAN (talk) 23:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no such a plan for massive Magyarization. This is what they deny (at least most of them). they don't say (I'm not their's spokesman :) Magyars was not settled down in the region at all. They just claim that Magyars were the last who were allowed to even enter the region.

Anti-slavic germanisation? According to Hun POV the rulers of Austria were interested in crushing the Hungarian estate rights, autonomy and resistance by settling down Germans and Serbs. This is why the immigration of Serbs was allowed (just think on the 200,000 Serbs led by Patriarch of Pec who entered the country in the late 17th century) and later used against Hungarians many times. Do you think it is normal that the Habsburgs gave preferences to peoples from abroad over the Empire's own citizens?! And if you think the Habsburgs plan was to organise some kind a frontier guard using this warrior ethnic element, you wrong. why did they send out into the world the Transylvanian army, the former royal castels' soldiers, the soldiers of Thokoly and many other Kuruc warriors??--fz22 07:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, but if there was no massive Magyarization plan in that time that does not mean that there was no some smaller plan, right? In fact, I just found more data about Gražalković plan in another book, which claim that he presented this plan to the Austrian authorities and that they rejected it, but that he anyway partially implemented this plan by settling Hungarians in his own possessions in Bačka. I will try to improve this part of the article. Also, the claim that "Magyars were the last who were allowed to even enter the region" apply to Banat, but not to Bačka. Regarding Serb migration in 1690, the terms "Slavization" or "Serbianization" would be valid in this case if these Serbs settled in the area that previously was inhabited by non-Slavs or non-Serbs. But that was not the case. They simply settled in the area which was populated by Serbs before that time period too. PANONIAN (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, but we are talking here about masive Hungarian colonisations perpetrated according to a plan. I claimed that there was no such a plan reffering to Hungarians much rather to Germans (see "Einrichtungswerk des Königreichs Hungarn" dated from the late 17th century). Your theory about slavisation is also faked. Increasing the percent of the Slavs/Germans/Magyars on a certain teritory could be also considered Slavisation. Being the land completely Slavs-free is not a requirement for Slavisation/Germanisation/Magyarization. --fz22 08:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found data that plan was rejected by Austrian authorities. So, it did existed, but it was personal plan of Gražalković. PANONIAN (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand your policies. You simply remove sourced paragraph because you dont agree with it. On the other hand you insist keeping of information that cannot be confirmed other than your sources. We all tried to confirm your source, but we couldnt. It should be mentioned in the article, that this information is questioned. --Al345 23:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read my entire post and you will see why I deleted it. It does not fit in the section. If fz22 explain its relevance, we can add it again. Regarding "confirmation for my source", I think you should read post made by Zello below. PANONIAN (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your original addition about Grassalkovich wasnt discussed but was strongly questioned. You keep the unconfirmed information and remove all other. This is absurd. Remove the whole section about Grassalkovich until discussed or keep the statement that says it is questionable. --Al345 00:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at this moment I have a bibliography of 5 books that mention plan of Gražalković, and I will mention them all in the article. However, regarding the post made by Zello below, I will try to combine the two opposite claims, although, it would be nice that some of you provide some sources that he also settled Slovaks or Germans in other areas. PANONIAN (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That whole claim is misleading with Grassalkovich. He was an incredibly wealthy landlord, born as a poor, clever Croatian boy but later became a Hungarus noblemen and member of the aristocracy. He spoke German, Croatian and Hungarian language and received huge estates from Queen Maria Theresa. He owned all the lands, villages and towns from Pest down to Novi Sad. The main problem of his was how to repopulate this devastated estates with obedient serfs - he wasn't interested whether this serfs are German, Slovak, Rusyn or Magyar at all. He settled different nationalities everywhere on his estate (as many other aristocrat of the age), regardless of their nationality. What about Slovak villages established by him in Pest county, was it Slovakization? The whole question is anacronistic. With the Serbs he had only one problem: they resisted to serfdom, refering to their special privilegees and status as free peasants and soldiers. There was no Magyarization plan of Grassalkovich - the effect of his policy was partly Magyarization, partly Germanization, partly Slovakization from our modern (nationalist) point-of-view. Zello 23:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he also deserves a sentence or two in the Slovakization article. Alphysikist 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term Hungarization was used in at least three different meaning in this article:

1. the policies that were enforced in the Hungarian part of Austria-Hungary in the 19th century and early 20th century

2. ethnic discrimination

3. A natural process in wich a person adopts the identity of another ethnic group(Hungarian).

In most cases it is not clarified, in what meaning the word is used. To avoid confusion it should be used in the original meaning(nr. 1) only.

Im referencing Dr. Dimitrije Kirilović's Asimilacioni uspesi Mađara u Bačkoj, Banatu i Baranji to prove that the original meaning of Hungarization applied only to forced policies in the end of 19th century and after. I do not claim he invented the word. --Al345 00:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Magyarization is an widely known historical concept, and this small book written by Kirilović is nothing but a drop in the sea of literature that speak about this in various languages. However, if you think that lead section should point to one source that speak about this, I recommend this source: A. J. P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918, 1948. (Serbian translation: A. Dž. P. Tejlor, Habzburška Monarhija 1809-1918, Belgrade, 2001.) PANONIAN (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, i dont agree with it as his works were followed with great controversies. --Al345 23:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, what you tried to done here is that to point lead section of the article to the book written by Kirilović to make impression that entire article is in fact based on this book (while I in fact took only several statistical indicators from it). The literature that speak about Magyarization is numerous in many languages and it have nothing to do with Kirilović and his book. If we want to point lead section to one source that speak about Magyarization then the best choice is this book written by A. J. P. Taylor, because it is an non-Serbian, non-Romanian and non-Slovak source, therefor the one whose bias towards Hungarians cannot be questioned by the Hungarian editors. PANONIAN (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read some reviews of him. Start on wiki. Then read some criticism of his works. Kirilovic deals with the beginning of Hungarization in that book. Thats a fact. Or do you deny it? --Al345 00:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Kozponti Nevmagyarosito Tarsasag" was never ever existed in reality, it was just a political bluff by the minority leaders, to achieve more voters to themselfelves in the end of the 19th century, when nationalism arose around the world. Man, tons of bullshit is in here, 90% without any citation. Have you heard about the case of John Seigenthaler, Sr., with wikipedia? This can be a nex one. This article is pointing some nationalist bullshit as if it was a national movement, backed by/made by/forced by the that-day-hungarian government. --195.56.49.195 18:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please say what exactly does not have citations, and I will see to provide you one. Also, what is your source that claim that "Kozponti Nevmagyarosito Tarsasag" never existed? PANONIAN (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names were first hungarian, now the are in (these), and the new names are shown if they were the first names. Backwards cronology. --195.56.49.195 20:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, names were not first Hungarian. Some of the places in KOH were not known under Hungarian names until the end of the 19th century. Even today many of such "Hungarian" names are nothing else but Slavic names written with Hungarian script. PANONIAN (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give source please for the existence of the "Kozponti Nevmagyarosito Tarsasag", for magyarisation as a "State policy". Many places were repopulated with foreigners mainly those places, wich were under turkish occupation, and they -as natural- used their words and names for places, usually translating former hungarian names. Of course they gave new names for some places, but not all. And its a natural thing to translate the names of the places into a country's official language, if it is within it's borders. Szabadka is Subotica now, but they dind't wrote a serbisation article, that this is a attack against the hungarian minority there. This article is a joke.

• No source for the existence of "Kozponti Nevmagyarosito Tarsasag"
• No source for many "forced" magyarisation. (Maybe they magyarised voluntary? Of course no one would do that.
• No source for the "State policy and ethnic relations" section
• No source for the "Names" section
• Viator Scotus was "anti-hungarian" he usually mixed his fantasies with reality, or simply made anti-magyar statements. Mainly his publications are "attacks" against the former Kingdom of Hungary - naming him for source is like naming Hitler in article about "jewisation". Not serious.
• "Dejiny Bratislavy.Archív hlavného mesta SSR Bratislavy. 1978 " This is not a book. "Dejiny" means history. It is a joke, not a source.
• No source for "Magyarization in the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary" , except one. (A. J. P. Taylor, who is one of the most controversial historians nowadays. Not a good source.)

So, please provide sources for these, and try to find dependable ones. Thanks.

The sources are provided here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarization#References and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarization#Notes So, read the whole article before claiming that there is no source, ok? Regarding places, many places were simply newly-founded in the area by non-Hungarians during the Ottoman rule and were not known under Hungarian name before the end of the 19th century. As for some other names that you claim that were "translated former Hungarian names", these "Hungarian names" also largely were non-Hungarian (mostly Slavic) names translated in Hungarian. The Hungarian history begin with the fact that Hungarians crossed Carpathians and subdued native Slavic population from the area, thus the claim about "originality of Hungarian names" simply cannot stand when we know that even today many cities in Hungary have Slavic names including Hungarian capital Budapest whose name is composed of two Slavic words - Buda (personal Slavic name still in use meaning "awake") and Pest (Slavic word for "furnace"). Regarding Subotica, it had name Subotica in the 16th century too, not only today, as well as most places in Vojvodina. Some of the places in the region that today had new names gained these names because old Serbian names for the places were replaced with new ones (old Serbian name was replaced with new Serbian name and not old Hungarian with new Serbian). PANONIAN (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I mentioned dependable ones. My problem is that some users here want to prove, that hungary and hungarians in fact never existed, they are just a fiction, and they are slavs. Its a joke, and you didn't mentioned it seriously, I hope. Pls read my comment above again. Viator Scotus hated hungary and the hungarian people, and J. P. Taylor is one of the most controversial historians of the modern times. I asked for dependable (not nationalist, or contorversial) sources (facts). You know, to be faithfull to Godwin's Law, in the article jews, there are no sections or anyting from Mein Kampf, or such book(s) (authors). In my view, because of the sorces (or because of the lack of the source) some parts of this article is not other, than hatred against hungarians. --195.56.90.216 00:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You want to say that Hungarians are not Slavs? Well, check these images then: http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/images/4jordan4.gif http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF2003/Warren/Warren02.jpg People on these images are Khanty, the closest linguistic relatives of the Hungarians. So, if languages of Hungarians and Khanty are similar, then why Hungarians do not look like Khanty? The only logical answer is because Hungarians are not Hungarians at all. :) And check this too: http://www.geocities.com/zakus_1999/bloodtypes.html The closest genetic relatives of Hungarians are the Serbs (with 99% similarity) and the second closest are Greeks, Austrians and Albanians (all with 97% similarity). Something for you to think about before go to sleep. :)) PANONIAN (talk) 02:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the human phylogeographic studies have nothing to do with bloodtypes. which is is routinely used in HPG is the HVR-1 of the mitochondrial control region (D-loop) and mtDNA D-loop mutations. According to your datas the Romanians closest relatives are the Finns :)) , the Turks second closest relatives are the Slovaks. --fz22 07:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so strange? The entire Romania was settled by Slavs in the 6th century and Finns mixed with Slavs for centuries. Turks also have much Slavic blood. In Turkey, you have at least 4 million Turks of Slavic (Bosniak and Serb) origin. PANONIAN (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My relatives in the Bácska look very similar to the Khanty and they live in Serbia, what do you think of that? ;) User:Öcsi

Maybe you did not saw them for a long time, so you forgot how they look. I never saw a Hungarian that look like Khanty. I am not expert for genetics, but pictures do not lie. Here are images of some Hungarians from Bačka: http://www.dnevnik.co.yu/arhiva/17-08-2002/akt/JozefKasa-in.jpg (Jozef Kasa, politician), http://www.dnevnik.co.yu/arhiva/28-06-2003/akt/Agoston3.jpg (Andras Agoston, politician), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Monica_Seles_2005.jpg (Monica Seles, tennis player), etc, etc. Do they look like Khanty to you? PANONIAN (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you thing about these ones: http://istvandr.kiszely.hu/ostortenet/kep/19.gif http://istvandr.kiszely.hu/ostortenet/kep/18.gif http://istvandr.kiszely.hu/ostortenet/kep/17.gif --fz22 19:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw them last year, but I may have Alzheimer. OK, they do not exactly look like them, but they are a bit slit-eyed and are not (very) similar to Serbs. PS: I have read this nonsense-article about the genetic relationship of Serbs. User Fz22 is absolutely right here. You can't determine ethnic groups by comparing their bloodtypes. According to that study even Swiss people (the majority of them lives in high-mountain-valleys and has only a very little contact with other ethnic groups, and they have definitely no Slavic roots) are very close relatives to the Serbs. Therefore: This study is a complete nonsense. User:Öcsi

User:PANNONIAN tries to convince us, that all the historians and other highly educated people and the masters of this field were all wrong. The hungarians are not finno-ugric people, but slavs. PANNONIAN knows better. The joke of the century :DDDDDDDDDDDDD OMG! :DDDD

My problems still not fixed. Racist, nationalist slovak writers are the sources. Another joke.

Pannonian is probably indoctrinated by the history that he was thought in school! I am a Transylvanian that knows exactly how and what happened, because my family was the subject of maghiarization. Not only our family was affected, but the entire village. Even the name of the village was changed. I know this because my ancestors left written memoirs about the period. One of them studied in Budapest and another one in Wien (Vienna) and both could speak Hungarian and German but they were 100% Romanians. Lots war forces to convert from Orthodoxism to Catholicism!

I’m sorry for you Pannonian, but this debate is pointless. You didn’t lose because you’re a blind nationalist, but because you simply don’t know (I hope!!). Anyway, it’s rather futile to tell Romanians your opinion when they all now what happened. The German and the Jewish minorities were also forced to speak Hungarian.

Do you read carefully the above? Your argument does not contradict PANONIAN's argument. Nobody deny that Magyarisation existed to subdue other Nations. Maybe you are confusing posts? Ion Negru 14:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a list of Magyarized place names from the Bánát. I think that's a valuable list but too long for this article and gives too much weight for one region. So I propose to change this so to have a list with only 5 exemplary members: 1 Serbian, 1 Slovak, 1 Romanian, 1 Rusyn, 1 German.

This Bánát-list should be moved without any change to the Bánát article. Zello 23:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These names were officially written with Hungarian orthography that time. They are obviously Serbian (etc) but until the new names were invented they were also the Hungarian versions. I know that the Serb orthography didn't changed since then but the Serb version was absolutely non-official that time so it would be impossible to change it by government action. This is really simple - look up the official ministerial decrees ordering the Magyarization: they will say that Sztarcsova is changed to Tárcsó. Your version is anachronistic - not Serb names were changed to Hungarian ones but a Slavic sounding official name was changed to a Hungarian sounding one. Zello 09:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Serbian names were official on local level. The official language in the country was Latin, but in the cities of Vojvodina, both, Serbian and German were usually official on local level. Later when Hungarian became official language of the KOH, it became official on local level. Also, you have one very bad example here: "Szokolovác - Nérasolymos (now Socol, Romania)". If you wanted with this to show Magyarized Romanian name, you are wrong. This place is located in Romania, but the name is Serbian, thus, instead to show Romanian name that was Magyarized, you showed Serbian name that was first Magyarized and then Romanized. :) I suggest to replace this with some original Romanian name. PANONIAN (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After 1867 the official language wasn't Latin but only Hungarian, the only official version of place names was the Hungarian one. I found a new example for a Romanian name, that village was populated by Romanians Zello 17:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find a version that is not anachronistic but shows that Starčevo wasn't a new invention. Although I think the situation is quite obvious - everybody can see that the former name was restored in 1918 so it cannot be new. Zello 18:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency with wiki article Grassalkovich Palace. In that article user Juro claims that "Croatian is ethnicity, Hungarian is the state", and he is listed as Croatian. Which article should be changed? --Al345 23:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was already changed and mention him simply as "Count Antal Grassalkovich", not mentioning his ethnicity. PANONIAN (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But should it be changed to Anton Grassalkovich or better as Antal? --Al345 00:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its also important regarding his role in Magyarization. --Al345 00:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never ever read such a hostile and anti-Hungarian article. Thank God someone put it out before me. Comparing to any other "-ization" articles, this is more than very awful, one sided, hostile etc. Here are some, to see, how an NPOV and good someizitation has to look like: Ukrainization, Anglicisation, Polonization. See? They were able to write it with pushing the majority's (aka non-hungarian) POV stuff through.

I read through the discussion page(es), here are some facts:

• The voting system was based on property status ! only rich ppl were allowed to vote, despite his/her ethnicity. (money rules :)

• First were slavic names, then hungarians, in regions, where slavs lived.

• Colonization: fz22 already told the fact: We should make a clear distinction between the post Ottoman war re-colonisation and the period after 1867 ... The first has nothing to do with Magyarization, it was just an attempt to repopulate an once prosperous territory. Yup, before 1867 colonization was only for the money. (to have more taxpayer) It occured in Maria Theresia's time.

• Antal Grassalkovich is here "Gražalković" and a hungarian landlord, who magyarized even the sky above his belongings, but in an other article (as mentioned above) - he is of croatioan origin and a victim of magyarization (by changing his name from Anton to Antal). Both standpoints are defended by the same users :D I suggest a big "see-through" how many similar cases can be found, where things are changed (even to its inverse as here) to push through a POV.

• "Központi Névmagyarosító Társaság" - was just a society to help ppl who wanted to magyarize their name. Got it? Voluntary. In this article it seems like a...dunno...clan wich searched for slavic placenames and slave people to grab and magyarize them quickly :) Don't be ridiculous, such institutions can be found in nearly all of the countries of the word today. It helps for those, who wants to change their name to a local one, or "localize" it. :)

• I strongly suggest reverting this article to as far back as this, under a major cleanup, then it can be rebuilt without this nationalist anti-hungarian content, wich it has now, becuse I don't want to list all the ridiculous things here, so many, that no one would ever go through them. :)--VinceB 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly in this article is "anti-Hungarian"? The article provide facts about nationalistic Apartheid policy of the KOH towards non-Hungarians that lived there. Those are pure historical facts and denial of these facts would be equal to Holocaust denial. Therefore, removal of facts simply because you do not like them is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. PANONIAN (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You see, thats a POV. Apartheid? OMG!! I suggest to read the article apartheid. Facts? Nope. Your (and Viator Scotus') fantasies. Scotus was a slovak nationalist, thats a fact.--VinceB 23:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should see that you denying it. Non-Hungarians even were not recognized as a "existing peoples" in post-1867 KOH, not to mention other "rights" that they had. Do you want to say that it is not truth? This was clear example of apartheid. PANONIAN (talk) 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's really something very silly. Hungary created one of the first liberal minority laws in Europe in 1868, schools, NGO's existed, there was no legal discrimination between the citizens of the KoH etc. Magyarization existed as a phenomenon but this kind of demonization makes impossible to create a neutral article. Zello 23:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The law existed all right, but no single word of it was ever implemented in practice. That show the whole hypocrisy of the Hungarin rulers from that time: they adopted a law to show to outside World how liberal they are, but they did not implemented the law in practice, which show what were their true intentions with non-Hungarians. PANONIAN (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godwin was right. :) - I see, nazism and apartheid was in fact invented by hungarians, any other statement is a denial and (in other articles) that only the hungarians are racist inthe world, they were and they still are and will be. And they beat themselves. (maybe this was not by you, but a wiki-friend of your's) - no comment :DD --VinceB 23:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Slota's point of view is the same. You forgot hungarian chauvinism and the brutal magyarization in Slovakia. Khm. :DD --VinceB 23:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not worry about that, Serbs are presented in much worse light in Wikipedia (just see Greater Serbia, Bosnian Genocide, Srebrenica massacre, etc, etc). You will not see one single article that present Hungarians like this. Of course, we all have our "dirty underwear", but trying to tell to the World that your own underwear is not dirty (when everybody see that it is) is not a very thankfull job. PANONIAN (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you are totally right. Thus, this is putting more ... into others, than how much they created. See my sixth "*" a bit above. I suggested a restart not a RfD. (In your words it proves that I'm not denying (sic!) it.) Just...read my second sentence again. --VinceB 00:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, reverting article to an outdated old version and destroying all changes of various users that were made during this time is never a good solution. Rather try to say what exactly you consider wrong in this version of the article. PANONIAN (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how interesting that article about Anti-Hungarian sentiment speak much worse about Slovaks and Romanians than Magyarization article speak about Hungarians, and yet you call Magyarization article anti-Hungarian, no matter that it mostly present Hungarian statistical data from the time of KOH. PANONIAN (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why they talk much worse, because they acted more worse against hungarians (I suggest using http://www.stars21.com/ for translating), or agains other ethincities. Cannot be compared to a cultural changing attempt, wich failed well before 1900, and a typical error by you, to push your very one sided point of view, with confuting any fact, that simlpy proves thatyour nonsense absurd, ridiculous - in one phrase: ultra-extremist - sentence(s) are nonsense, absurd, ridiculous - in one phrase: ultra extremist. --VinceB 07:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really. :) I see you get your sources from Hungarian propaganda. I am not a specialist in Slovak or Serb history, but give me a break on Romanian stuff. The Hungarians screwed (or tried to screw) the Romanian majority in Transylvania during the Middle Ages, during the 1848 revolution, during the Ausgleich, during the second world war, and even today (the only region of Romania that currently (since the 1989 revolution) undergoes ethnic cleansing is the one with Hungarian majority). So I say you are the extremist. Once the Hungarians give up the "Greater Hungary/Saint Stephen Kingdom" idea, and stop denigrating all "former colonies", Eastern Europe will be a better place. Dpotop 08:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Guard, Noua Dreaptă, Gheorge Funar, the village destroyings of Ceaucescu in the 1980, want more? I can send you tons of this. As I see you're sharing PANONINAN's opinion, and it is clearly proved by you on the romanianization page. You are right in some statemens anyway, you only missed one word so I just copy it, and you'll se wich is it: [..]the only region of Romania that currently (since the 1989 revolution undergoes ethnic cleansing is the one with Hungarian majority and/or minority - by for ex Ceaucescu, later Gheorghe Funar in Cluj-Napoca, or by Avram Iancu, who was an extremist, he organized an uprising and delared a state for himself and started an ethnic guerilla war in the hills against hungarians... OMG! :D I see what you "contributed" to romanianization. No wonder you share PANONIAN's opinion. --VinceB 09:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Avram Iancu was less extremist than Kossuth, and certainly killed less Hungarians than the Hungarian army killed Romanians at the time (for one, Iancu simply remained in his mountains to defend himself). As for Funar, the democracy in Romania lead to his destitution, as an extremist, and did not allow him to push what you call "ethnic cleansing" beyond painting Cluj benches in the Romanian colors (very american in approach, I find). On the contrary, people are still being forced to leave Harghita and Covasna, or magyarize. I would certainly give them full autonomy and then push on them the same minority protection laws that the Romanian state respects. Dpotop 09:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and just a side note: Your "OMG" are ridiculous. This is not a discussion between girlfriends about the last Robbie Williams concert. Dpotop 09:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

being forced to leave Harghita and Covasna? Or magyarize? In Romania??? Nope, I got a friend from Şumuleu Ciuc, and some other from different cities and villages of Hargitha, Covasna and from the romanian side of the rom-hun border. They told very different stories how things are going there. Where hungarians are not a majority, they are treated as secondary citizens. Also in offices everything only in romanian. See the hungarian minority policies, how Romanians, Slovaks, and other ethnics are treated here in Hungary. Agression is only againt gipsies and jews, and those are only by extremist, whom are treated here strictly. They got only 2.76% on elections, insted of SNS' more than 10 (!) percent, not to mention Meciar's party, or in romania, the Greater Romania Party's 12.57%... Its a lie (or with your words a romanian/slovakian propaganda) that hungarians are chauvinist. Nope, your chauvinist parties got more than 10 percent per party, ours are all came together in an alliance and got only 2.76 --VinceB 12:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this for real? I cite: "only against gipsies and jews"? That is, the only minorities that are still visible after the German and Romanian minorities were totally assimilated in the last century? Dpotop 12:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "Romanian majority"... And how the became majority? No need for an answer. Just have a look at this picture [1] by your good friend PANONIAN and think. 195.56.30.68 10:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, anon editor. I don't really know Pannonian, whether he's an extremist or not, etc. What I know is that he has a point here: Just like Romanians, Serbians, a.s.o., the Hungarians did some very nasty things in the past. The nasty deeds of Romanians (and probably Serbs, Croats, a.s.o.) are reported in other articles. Here, you try to fully whitewash Hungarian nationalism, and it cannot work, if at the same time you want the aggressions of the other reported. Dpotop 12:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Romanian majority... They were a majority in the earliest censuses for Transylvania. I don't know for sure, but I believe the most reasonable explanation for this is they were there before Hungarians. And, anyway, you will have to live with that fact. Dpotop 12:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys are willing to stop trying to kick each other's teeth out, how about discussing some specifics. Let's start with two things that, if accurate, need citation, and, if not, should be gone.

1. What is the origin of the term "ethnic engineering policies"? I have never seen it. It is awkward English. If it is citable, please cite it. If it is not, it should not be here, because it would amount to a neologism.
2. "the use of Magyarization in this article is prefered in its original meaning". What is the citation for considering a particular meaning "original"?

-- Jmabel | Talk 18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, nothing happened on this page in the last 3 days. Are you somehow trying to restart the dispute? Dpotop 19:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't really noticed the dates on the comments (I am lagging on my watchlist) and, no, I am not trying to restart the dispute, but I am trying to raise precisely the two questions I am raising, both of which I think are problems with the article as it stands. - Jmabel | Talk 04:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is full of lies and/or misleading, usually by simply hiding historical facts behind nationalist POV. For ex, does not mention the huge immigration between 1880-1910 when 1.000.000 non-hungarians immigrated. And this is continously deleted from everywhere this page is linked in. This page is simply bad, and its content had been streamt into enwiki. Also denies the fact, that universal suffrage was introduced in after the Treaty of Trianon, wich means at least 50% were shut out (the women), see more at Talk:Magyarization #voting system and other details above. Fz22 is absolutely right. --91.120.120.72 15:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what immigration have to do with Magyarization? Regarding other things it would be more helpfull that you mention here concrete things in this article that you do not understand, and I will be happy to explain them to you. :) PANONIAN (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You claim in all articles edited by you that ethnic changes was due to magyarization. Thats false. Due to immigration. If 1.000.000 non hungarians leave the country, it means, that the minorities are 1.000.000 less. Really really sad, that you do not see the obvious connection.

I show you in an example: We've got 9 apples and 11 other fruits (of 6-8 kind) in a bowl. That's 20 total. Got it? Apples are a relative majority (45%). Now, take away from the bowl 5 "other fruits" and 2 apples and put them on the other table, across the ocean. In our bowl there will remain (11-5=) 6 "other fruits" and (9-2=) 7 apples. So that's (7+6=) 13 total. 7 is bigger than 6, so apples became the majority (54%) Got it? The "other fruits" weren't "appleized", but simply left the bowl. That's the fact, and this is how (and why) changed so drastically the ethnic composition of the KoH, dude. Only jews assimilated, but they did it spontaneously, not because of being forced to. --VinceB 19:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Magyarization was official policy in the Kingdom of Hungary. The emigration of non-Magyars was also part of that policy whose goal was to Magyarize the Kingdom by all means including: 1. emigration of non-Magyars, 2. forcing non-Magyars to change their identity and 3. settling "pure" Magyars into areas inhabited mainly by non-Magyars. The emigration partially explain how number of non-Hungarians became smaller, but it certainly do not explain how number of Hungarians increased: if average natural increase of population in the Kingdom of Hungary in 1880-1900 period was 10.3%, then increase of ethnic Hungarians in some areas for 105.2% certainly was not a natural one. Maths is complicated science, mister Vince, much more complicated than calculating 20 apples. :) PANONIAN (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you're having difficulties with it. I am sad, that you do not understand it. I can not explain it more simple. Think inverse. The number of hungarians were the same, simply the other ethnicities went away. Dude. Try to understand the example above. Good luck, --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the number of Hungarians was not the same. It increased a lot. I will repeat: in 1880-1900 time period, the natural increase of population in the Kingdom of Hungary was +10.3%. That mean that in perfect conditions for development, all ethnic groups in the Kingdom of Hungary should have natural increase of +10.3%. But, it was not the case. Here I will show you comparison between natural increase of Serbs and Hungarians in the cities of Vojvodina in 1880-1900 period: the average natural increase of Serbs in those cities was -19.5%, while the average natural increase of Hungarians in those cities was +105.2%. Do you understand the difference? How you explain such large increase of Hungarian population? If the average natural increase in the Kingdom of Hungary was +10.3% then average natural increase of ethnic Hungarians should be also +10.3%, and certainly not +105.2%. Do you understand how large difference this is? PANONIAN (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it means, that that amount of ppl had immigrated from there. [2] "Between 1899 and 1911, over 197,000 Germans left Hungary" ("The Great Economic Immigration from Hungary, 1880-1920," in Király-Festschrift (1983), pp. 189-216.), for example. In only 12 yrs. And this is only the german minority. Dude. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 19:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you have problem with understanding what I said or what? The emigration (partially) explain how number of Serbs decreased, but it do not explain how number of Hungarians increased. If emigration was only issue here then you would have smaller number of Serbs, but you would also have same (not larger) number of Hungarians (or at least not larger than it would be enlarged by average natural increase of +10.3%). But one huge increase of Hungarians for +105.2% could be explained by only two things: 1. colonization of Hungarians in the area and 2. Magyarization of non-Hungarians. PANONIAN (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you say. You does not understand what I say. For the 100th time: immigration amongst the various ethnic groups weren't the same. With 1 hungarian immigrant went 3 non-hungarians. I've explained it several times before, dude, I do not know why are you editing such articles, if you cannot understand such an easy thing... :S --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 17:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vince, there is no reason for resorting to ad hominem. Try to be civil and read the whole discussion again. I am sure, you will realize that you are not talking about the same thing with PANONIAN. You are talking about the relative numbers (percentage) and emigration, he is talking about absolute numbers (number of people) and the natural population growth. Emigration is surely an important explanatory variable as far as the relative numbers are concerned. But it certainly cannot explain a rise in absolute numbers or a conspicuously high natural population growth. If it is true that the number (I repeat, the number, not the percentage) of Magyars was increased in a short period of time by 105%, or that their natural population growth was at that level, emigration of non-Magyars is principally irrelevant in this case. Please, buy yourself a book about the basic demographic concepts before you questions qualification of other editors. Tankred 23:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You finished with an ad hominem, so I'm starting with it, and ask you to do the same. I warned you several times to be civil also. Emigration of non-Magyars are as irrelevant in demographics as the Earth in the Solar System, because it has life on it. :-) This is sophism Tankred, nothing else, and the same, as PANONIAN says. My questions are the same as below by Fz22, oh, and Tankred, you got some extras: User talk:Tankred#Knowing things better. I'd rather see you answering those first, than trying to argue with me wherever its possible. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 16:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least read what I have written? What exactly is so incomprehensible? I did NOT say that emigration is irrelevant for "demographics". Here is my sentence again: "Emigration is surely an important explanatory variable as far as the relative numbers are concerned." On the other hand, emigration is not part of the equation of the natural population growth and PANONIAN addressed this topic. Is this a sophism? No, it is not. This is just basic demography. Please, read my comments more carefully and do not misinterpret them. Tankred 17:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read. He's talking about an average of the KoH than the numbers in Vojvodina. The problem with this is that it simply denies internal migration, or simply that fact, that this huge immigration got depopulated many places, wich pulled down the KoH average enermously. PANONIAN is mixing things. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is incredible. Seems that you do not possess even a basic knowledge about demographics. If I am wrong, please explain how is possible that number of ethnic Hungarians increase for +105.2% if average natural increase of population in the Kingdom of Hungary was +10.3%? And just to give you one lesson from demographics: this increase have nothing to do with increase of percent of ethnic Hungarian population, but with increase of absolute number of Hungarians. PANONIAN (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this is what I call data-droping. Please be more explicit. +105%?? what period are you talking about? +10.3%? for which decade? and what city??

According to Hungarian statistics:

- 1870-1880 1.2%

- 1880-1890 9.3%

- 1890-1900 11.2% (emigration-imigration = -170,000 which shows a huge immigration rate)

and yes the core territory of the kingdom (populated almost exclusively by Magyars) had a bigger natural increase

Eszek was the only city in South Hungary having a population increase above 25% in the period between 1900-1910. (eg. the pop. increase of Budapest in the same period was: 20.7%, Oradea was on the top with its 27,9%; Cluj-Debrecen had 23%)

and don't forget the Jewish people. Theirs number increased from 540,000 in 1880 to 910,000 in 1910. --fz22 21:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Fz22 - Good questions. I'd ask the same. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 16:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't know which time period Panonian means. Maybe a period of hundred years (from 1810 to 1910)? But then a growth of 100% would be only normal, especially at a time when INDUSTRIALISATION began.--Öcsi 18:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Pannonian talks about the period between 1850-1910. We have >100% increase for Magyars, in this period. 46% for Germans, 33% for Romanians, 12% for Slovaks. Only the Polish people exceded the Magyars in the dual monarchy.

If we take another sample 1850-1890: 54% increase for Magyars; 30-40% for Germans, Czechs, and Italians

Now let's see where this high increase (100% ~ 5 million) come from:

- ~ 3 million natural growth

- 500,000 emigration "profit" (two thirds or even more of the emigrants were non magyars)

- 1.3 - 1.5 came from the assimilation: 500,000 Jewish, 300,000 Germans, 200,000 Slovaks (mainly from the Alfold region), 80,000 Serbians+Croats, 50,000 Romanians were assimilated. These numbers speaks for themself. this is the so-called "forced Magyarization" --fz22 21:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People, what is your problem? I clearly said what I meant and for what time and places are my data, but if you did not read that, I will repeat:

• Between 1880 and 1900, natural increase of the population in the Kindom of Hungary was +10.3%.

To rectifey your error: the correct sum is 20.5% --fz22 22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If we compare that number with the population increase of Serb and Hungarian populations for same time period in the cities of Vojvodina, we have this data: increase of Serbs was -19.5%, while increase of Hungarians was +105.2%.

which city? --fz22 22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you understand now or I have to draw? Besides this, fz, to what your numbers refer to? 1870-1880 1.2% (1.2% of what, where and when? try to be more specific, ok?). PANONIAN (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, the natural population growth of Hungary between 1870 and 1880 was only 1,2%! --fz22 22:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got only 200 sources yet (see below in my response to Jmabel), (and in bibliography another 100 books - from notable non-Central-European authors also) wich mostly clearly denies what you (and Ion Negru) claim, and if it is not enough (OMG!), they also describes what really happened :-) (economic depression, poverty, etc. - in one sentence: miserable living conditions forced many ppl to immigrate. Riches were able to flee the country, the poor (mainly) hungarian peasant was only able to flee the rural country and move up to a city for a better living. But you'll deny this, because it cannot happen, just only the forced (let me say, what you want to say: "brutal"(copyright to Jan Slota)) magyarization :-) What else to say? Oh I know, PANONIAN, you are wrong. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 22:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW statistics is the base of demography (not demographics - if you ask me to learn a science, at least you should write down properly the name of it - or I can't take it seriously or at least a bit believe that you're good in it). I suggest you to read the Demography#Basic demographic equation part. All what you explained above simply missed/mixed/something else some parts of the formula. I just want to convince you, that it is good, (and all the others I said, related on them) and they know it better than you, simply because they are experts in the field. Dude :-) --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 22:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly right PANONIAN - 100+% increase in 20 years cannot be explained by birth/death dynamic. Emingration/immigration also not - where did these Hungarians come from? 100+% increase shows effects of forced magyarization and this also happened in Romania (transilvania) - why to deny it? Ion Negru 16:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is wrong, because there was no 100% increase in 20 years, but in 100 years. To remind you, the population of hungarians in 1880 was about 6-7 millions and in 1910 around 9.5 millions. 3 millions are not 100% but ca. 50%. (in 1810, the number was about 4.5 millions, almost the half of 9.5 millions).--Öcsi 17:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than happy if you would tell us where do you got these "conclusions" and numbers. To be sure, its not a original research. Give verifiable sources. You know, WP:Verify. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 22:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vince what you write (above) argue against your conclusion. There was (agree) in this period much migration from farming countryside (Voivodina, Transilvania) to cities (Budapest, Vienna, Seghedin) and this does not explain the 100% increase of Hungarians both rich and poor - in the countryside (Voivodina) but it would explain a decrease. You Hungarians are good at mathematics (but nobody can multiply so fast) - why the struggle with logic? Ion Negru 16:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's logical, maybe I was short. Not only cities, but villages and small towns were also involved in this. 1.5-2-x million ppl fleeing a country where the total population was abt 10-13million within 40 yrs cannot affect only cities and bigger towns, and/or only some regions of the KoH, but all of it. Hungarians simply did not left the country in as big numbers, as the others did.

Let's do math again. If we've got 2 'A's and 2 'B's and you take away in two seconds 1 'B', it can be interpreted as: the number of 'A's are incresed from 50% to 66.6% (or by 16.6% in two seconds), or, the number of 'B's decreased from 50% to 33.3% (by 16.6% in two seconds), but we know that nor A or B can grow/decline with 16.6% in two seconds. It is more than obvious that a non-natural thing caused this. But what? Everyone has a theory, but in fact one of them (migration) is the exact (verified) reality.

Maybe you know that statistical average in reality usually does not exist. From X city 10% migrated, from village B 50% - its average will be 30%. It is not true in none of the places, but true in a type of sum wich summarizes that what amount of the citizens leaved per place (but not the amount/number of the total pop of each town/village), but also not true in reality (numbers), since for ex. in X city the 10% was 20.000 ppl, but in village B the 50% was only 20 ppl.

3rd one for huge growing: Y village had 100 ppl: 50H and 50non-H --> 40 non-H sold their houses to 40H, and migrated. But additional 20 Hs are moved in from the boondocks. So a village of 100 becomes a village of 120 where the number of Hs increased with (40+20) 60, or with 120% (!). Boondocks were not counted in PANONIAN's percentages, just only villages/towns/cities/etc. This is what is called urbanization. It seems as "ppl from nothing" in statistics. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 22:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take that to mean "no, we'd rather kick each other's teeth out". But let me ask my questions again:

1. What is the origin of the term "ethnic engineering policies"? I have never seen it. It is awkward English. If it is citable, please cite it. If it is not, it should not be here, because it would amount to a neologism.
2. "the use of Magyarization in this article is prefered in its original meaning". What is the citation for considering a particular meaning "original"?

- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...a variation of Q2 - "What is the origin (e.g. first use) of the term Magyarization/Magyarisation ?" The section "Origin of the term" does not give an origin, only descriptions. The section should either be repaired or at least renamed. István 15:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, if this would be the smallest problem with this article. Just check the disputes above. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 13:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Scotus can be a source in wikipedia, we should use the book Carlile Aylmer Macartney: Hungary and her Successors. (1937.) also and some other from him. To balance the lies and fakes, Scotus created and claimed. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 13:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean "if this would be the largest problem..." ? Some of the above disputes seem to base upon a moving-target definition, i.e. whatever suits the argument at-hand. The question of first use is quite bona-fide as editors are fond of appealing to its "original meaning" which remains unwritten (at least here). István 14:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I wanted to say. If this is missing what a mess (could be) the content. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 17:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Almost 530,000 person left the country between 1905 and 1907": might a large proportion of these be Jews? This was a major period of Jewish emigration from Europe in the wake of the failed Russian Revolution and the Iaşi pogrom. But it is not clear that would have been quite such an issue in Hungarian territories. - Jmabel | Talk 18:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were from various minorities. see the book: "The Great Economic Immigration from Hungary, 1880-1920," in Király-Festschrift (1983). For an example. Or what I collected about the question yet: User:VinceB/Immigration --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 21:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petőfi from magyarized family? :D No, he choose it on his own will. If he would be forced, he would write poems about magyarization and such things :D No wonder, why do I see at this article' as a huge mess and full of lies and nationalist POV. It is obvious, that it contains a lie in the second paragraph. (not to mention the other parts, but this is an obvious thing for everybody, while the argument above is not) --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 21:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it doesn't appear to be coerced magyarization, it definitely is magyarization. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.23.225 (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

"However, he had a notably strong Hungarian self-awareness, becoming the spiritual leader of the radical groups of the Revolution (who wanted full independence from the Habsburg Monarchy and a free Hungary) and writing some of Hungary's greatest national poetry - from his poem, Nemzeti dal ("National Song")" - from Sándor Petőfi's page, hehe :) --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 21:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Magyarized family" does not imply involuntary Magyarization; indeed, in the context I would think it would be hard to read it that way. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the main park kept out from the article? Slavic nationalism brought the attempt to make Hungarian the first language of the Kingdom of Hungary, to broke them down. This is why it happened, and it occured only in education and administration, no other things. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 21:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Magyarization#Pan-Slavism and Nationality Act of 1868

Pan-Slavism was an movement that aimed to liberate Slavs from foreign rule. Do you want to say that movement for liberation is something bad? Hungarians wanted to enslave Slavs and Pan-Slavism was reaction to Magyarization and Greater Hungarian policy, not otherwise. PANONIAN (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pan-Slavism, with its first congress in 1848 was an aswer to the "magyarization policy" of 1867 and after. Yeah, sure. :-) --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 22:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because Magyarization policy did started in 1848. PANONIAN (talk) 22:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so the article is wrong. Or maybe 1867 was an answer to this? No way, because it would ruin this well built article of lies :-) --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 22:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the page Pan-slavism: "The movement began following the end of the wars in 1815." - so what was answer for what? This article's content for Pan-slavism. :-) --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 23:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, what "Greater Hungary" ? It was Greater Hungary that time. Anyway, you made e curious, so please, explain it to me, and all of the fellow Hungarians who were kept between lies in all their life abt the "1848-49 (Hungarian) revolution and freedom fight", that it was not that :-) --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 22:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of opening another can of worms: pan-Slavism doubtless had elements of a liberation movement, but it also had aspects of a movement to establish Russian hegemony over Slavic lands. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Habsburgs incited the ethnicities against the hungarians to gain more solders against the freedom fighters, imprisoning or executing of ppl, (such as the irredentist Janko Kráľ) was made to A: broke down the armies, and to keep the status quo (borders) - If someone incites pple to grab a weapon and fight against an other, the other would soon execute or imprison him/her. Its a normal wartime activity. Just remember the Yugoslav wars they were not long ago. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 22:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong: the Hungarians were not freedom fighters - they wanted to create Greater Hungary and to enslave Slavs and Romanians. It is Hungarians who turned themselves against Slavs when they rejected to recognize their rights, remember that war in 1848 started when Hungarian army attacked Serbs. PANONIAN (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, sure, and the KoH was an apartheid [3], we know your marginal POV, no need to write them again. I suggest you to read history books, or at least read the article apartheid before stating greens. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 22:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to say that Hungarians did not started war in 1848? Think twice before your answer... PANONIAN (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You: "war in 1848 started when Hungarian army attacked Serbs" - maybe you're mixing with 1914. No to mention how do you mix other things in yr articles and statements. You hv no idea abt history, but abt hungarian history, it is more than obvious, you proved it many many times.

Here I must agree with Pannonian ;) with a few refinement: there was no Hungarian army, the recruitment started in May, 1848. And the defenders of Petervarad did not attack Serbs at random, but armed Serbian gunmens ... Read this VinceB: http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu/bibl/mil/1848/kronologia.html --fz22 11:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minorities wanted freedom, pan slavism wanted to "liberate" slavs by wars (for ex Illyrian movement). The first military action of the hungarian revolution of 1848-49 was the Battle of Pákozd, when croatian Josip Jelačić was incited by the Habsburgs (as all the other ethnicities within the KoH) to attack the hungarian revolutioners, in exchange he was appointed to the rank of Ban and lieutenant-field marshal - see his article. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 23:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Above: "enslave" (or even "enserf") is awfully strong. Yes, the ethnic Hungarians wished to establish hegemony, but it is a gross exaggeration to suggest that they wanted to reduce others to the status of slaves. - Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to think, that partly this page contains a marginal serbian theory (POV), since some paragraph, there is a sentence like this "Serbian historians consider this as an act of magyarization" (more or less similar). Nevertheless, this is a weasel term ( "serbian historians" - who? sources?), it is usad at those cases wich can be seen as not a "magyarization act".

see: "[...]Serb historians^{[citation needed]} consider this plan to be an early Magyarization policy assuming that its goal was to provide that ethnic Serb population remain in majority only in central part of Bačka [...]" - that's cool, but was is the reality? Better to cut out conspiracy theories, or even better if all the theories, and replaced by facts. I puts {{fact}} to many parts, wich are weasel terms, or contains a national(ist) theory instead of a fact. And some other statements also. If they are true, they can be easily sourced with reliable, not marginal/nationalist authors' VERIFIABLE books/pampleths/whatever. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sorces are listed in the article, you just have to read the whole article including footnotes and nothing more. PANONIAN (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is why I asked for "reliable, not marginal/nationalist authors' VERIFIABLE books/pampleths/whatever." (see above) --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 23:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They seen assimilation as a godd way to become a full citizen, since they were treated as secondary citizens throuought Europe since they arrived there. Sometimes they were even expelled. (just one example wich is also the most notable: Alhambra decree from the Spanish Inquisition) - Now they had a chance to become a hungarian, who's religion is jewish. (Since this became common in the world, it became a common question that a "jew" is an ethnicity or a religion) --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might be truth about Jews, but never mind that, Hungarian fascists killed in 1942 raid in Novi Sad many of those Magyarized Jews. How you explain that? PANONIAN (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not might, but it is. Your question is irrelevant, since we're talking about the magyarization of jews. How and why it happened. Stay on the line, pls.--Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 23:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Vince here. - Jmabel | Talk 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since only males over 21 were allowed to vote untill 1918, half of the ppl (or let me say more than 50%) were shut out from the system. Since there was a wealth census also, the richest 10% were only able to vote. See it on this page above: Talk:Magyarization#voting system

Additional stuff: Suffrage#Types of suffrage (--> Universal suffrage, Women's suffrage), Suffrage#Forms of exclusion from suffrage#Social class

In Hugary, the date of deleting every census and also giving voting rights to the women is 1918 (see Universal suffrage#Universal suffrage in the world)--Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 22:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And why in 1918? Because that is time when Hungarian rulers realized that they will lost war, so they wanted to present themselves as "more democratic" than they were. How nice... PANONIAN (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, totally missed. "After the Central Powers' defeat in World War I.", (see there.) :-D --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 23:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Pallas lexicon (in hungarian) - about the magyarization ("névmagyarosítás") of names. - the "Központi névmagyarosító társaság" was established on april 18, 1881, also it was it's first meeting. It propagated the thing, since there was no such law or whatever, and made a succesful lobby to reduce the fee of namechanging from 5 forints, to 50 krajcars (0,5 Ft). This is written down in the 1881. XXVI. law's 21. section. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 21:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary's ALL (yes, that's A-L-L ) laws are collected here, between the years 1000 (!!) and 2003. So, if magyarization was ever written down in a law, (or any such or other kind of events), we WILL find it. Very very very useful. Happy searching :) --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC) http://www.1000ev.hu - --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although Magyarization of surnames was certainly an existing phenomenon and it is mentioned already in the article I'm against to use Seton-Watson as a source. His work is the most infamous example of anti-Hungarian propaganda with many contorted and simply fake data. In wikipedia academic citations are needed and Seton-Watson is certainly not an academic writer. Zello 13:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert William Seton-Watson was an important British historian that published several books in important publishing houses of the time. We cannot ignore in here all he wrote, just because it happens that we don't like what he wrote. User:Zello just reverted all my edits that were referring to some Watson books. Most of the edits were not even comments, but statistical data taken from Hungarian sources. I don't want to start an edit war, so please don't just revert edits. Alexrap 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support inclusion of this academic reference. It is a book published by Cambridge University Press and authored by a prominent British historian. Seton-Watson's works are valued especially for their comprehensive character and they are still extensively cited.[4] For example, he is extremely highly regarded in Anderson's own influential book Imagined Communities (which is a mandatory reading in perhaps all the political science departments of the English-speaking world). Let me quote: "Hugh Seton-Watson, author of far the best and most comprehensive English-language text on nationalism, and heir to a vast tradition of liberal historiography and social science." Wikipedia cannot go against the consensus in the academia and disregard such an important scholar. Tankred 21:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seton-Watson wasn't a simple historian but the member of the Intelligence Bureau of the War Cabinet (1917) and the Enemy Propaganda Department (1918) of the British Empire. see http://www.ssees.ac.uk/archives/sew.htm

He was also a very influential politician during the Paris Peace Conference and a founding father of the Trianon Treaty. In this role he fought against any attempt to ease the burdens of Hungary and was definitely hostile to Hungarians. He participated in the events as much as Clemenceau or Apponyi. He deliberately lied many times during the conference for example he said that only 6-700 000 Magyars live in Transylvania see: http://www.valosagonline.hu/index.php?oldal=cikk&cazon=225&lap=1

He influenced the British delegates of the conference as much that one of them, Harold Nicolson wrote in his memoires "I hate very much this Turanian tribe" and other, Allen Leeper wrote to Seton-Watson in a letter: "There hardly any people in the whole world that I dislike so much as Hungarians."

S-W was a close ally of the Czechoslovakian leader, Masaryk and published articles supporting Czechoslovakian territorial claims (Czecho-Slovak Claims I–III, New Europe).

If you use him as a source for serious articles calling him an "important scholar" I will bring here Apponyi citations for Hungarian cultural superiority and other crap because this is the same category. Zello 17:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This whole page is based on Viator Scotus's fantasybook, instead of official facts. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 15:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zello, if he was an influential politician during the Paris Pease Conference, as you say, it only means that some people (British Government) believed that he was an important politician. I couldn't find anything in his book saying that Romanians, Czechs or Slovaks have a cultural superiority over the Hungarians, so I cannot see how you can say that he is from the same crap category as Apponyi. Could you please explain what exactly you dislike from the things added to this article using his books? As I said, those were not even his comments, but just data taken from Hungarian statistics. Alexrap 12:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SW has bona fide academic credentials, but is not an unbiased source on Hungarian issues. His status at Versailles was achieved as a result of his work in the UK's Intelligence Bureau of Department of Information [5] as a propogandist. Most of his academic credentials were established after Trianon. IMHO, he does not belong in the pseudohistorian category, and I would not say that he disliked Hungarians per se (he had Hungarian friends) but he certainly detested the Hungarian government and their policies toward their neighbours and openly opposed them at every turn. One may be forgiven for believing that he had such a deeply invested animosity towards "Hungary" (read "antiliberal political establishment of Hungary") that it may have altered his actions at Versailles as well as his defense of Trianon. He should be taken with a big grain of salt and, as is the case with David Irving, one should look to other sources to verify the points he makes. István 16:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the work for the British government, many of the most informed experts worked for their governments both during WWI and WWII. It does not make their expertise less relevant. Moreover, one of the cited books is from 1911, i.e. three years before WWI and well before any negotiations in Trianon, and another from 1934, i.e. 16 years after the end of WWI. No one has cited here any propagandist works written by Seton-Watson (if he really wrote any) during the war. Tankred 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SW's work for UK during WWI does not discredit him as an historian, but the record shows it likely shaded his perspective of "Hungary" immediately after the war (Trianon). In response to your post, here [6] are cited propogandist works written by SW during the war. I would take his works on interslavic relations seriously but not those on Hungarian issues, much as we could accept William Shockley as an authority on physics but not on sociology. István 18:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add your comment below about the Seton-Watson case. Zello 10:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppinion of User:Dpotop. From the dicussion in the previous section, and from the cited references, I see that Seton-Watson is acknowledged as a scholar by all but a few Hungarian sources (BTW, I am not able to read those sources, so I deduce they are critical by assuming the good faith of User:Zello and User:Vince. The case against Seton-Watson seems pretty light as I write this. Dpotop 11:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say that I know much about Seton-Watson. Zello said he was an important participant to the Paris Peace Conference from the British delegation. For me, this means that he was considered an important historian. I did not read all his books, but the ones I had a look through were written in an objective way. And the fact that they were published by famous publishers, should be another indication that his work is quite valuable. Also, I don't know what exactly is disputed from the information added to this article using his books. Two of his books were cited only to give exact numbers/percentages about the Hungarian election system. Are these numbers incorrect? Could Zello present some exact figures showing the number of deputies from the different ethnic groups, to contradict the figures written in Seton-Watson books? Also, Zello seems to revert all edits, even those referencing other authors, not Seton-Watson, without explaining the reasons behind his actions. Alexrap 12:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great-Britain and Hungary were in war that time. The official chief propagandist of the hostile state can't be credited as an impartial scholar. It is an obvious contradiction per se. Who would accept an 1948 Israeli war propagandist about Palestinian history? (Or a Syrian propagandist about Israeli history, it doesn't matter). The problem is not the nationality but the historical role of S-W himself. As for Dpotop's comment not a few but NO Hungarian historian accept Seton-Watson. It makes no sense to bring any other Hungarian sources because of the language problem. Zello 17:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cited books are from 1911 and 1934. The UK and Hungary were not at war at that time. Tankred 20:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving is British, is a higly educated scholar, and is a historian, and has 1550 (!) hits on google scholar, and is widely regarded by many ppl. Why don't we use his books and researches? The same reason, why not Seton-Watson should be used. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 18:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion of User:István. In the context of post-WWI Hungarian issues, Seton-Watson should be read cautiously and with much "scepticism" - much in the same light as David Irving regarding Jewish issues - i.e. accept his material as reference here only when corroborated and never draw a conclusion single-sourced from his work. In any other context, one may draw upon his work more freely. István 20:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the validity of S-W's writings, but I would like to mention WP:NPOV: "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." As a known historian, S-W's writings should be included in the article, but should not be presented as necessarily being historical fact. Thus, mention should be made of S-W's wartime background and possible bias. Olessi 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wartime activity is only part of the problem. The other thing is his close alliance with Masaryk and other Czechoslovakian leaders. As I mentioned S-W wrote articles in his journal "New Europe" explicitly supporting Czechoslovakian territorial claims. In Hungary-related issues S-W acted as a politician, indeed a very hostile politician, not as an academic scholar. I really don't believe that his book published in the 1930's should be use as a source when certainly other, not-biased works were published about Romanian history since then. Zello 22:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Seton-Watson's opinions are still more valuable than those of a simple Wikipedia user. I don't understand what is wrong with someone supporting Czechoslovakian teritorial claims in 1918. Is it widely accepted that those claims were not legitimate? I don't think so. But we should not discuss that in here because, I repeat, no personal comment/opinion/view from Seton-Watson's books were cited in this article. There were only some facts/figures (about the Hungarian election system) taken by Seton-Watson from some Hungarian statistics. Are those numbers incorrect? Alexrap 22:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to realize the difference between a historian and a propagandist of a hostile state. He was so deeply involved in anti-Hungarian politics that he attacked Nicola Jovanovic Serb radical politician (!) when that wrote an article in Sunday Times supporting the rights of Hungarians in Transylvania. S-W wrote in his answer: "I condemn every opinion on the Czeh, Romanian and Yugoslavian side that gives way to speculations that these nations doesn't stood firmly side by side against Hungarians." A fine example of an impartial scholar indeed. On the Paris Peace Conference S-W claimed in his speach that 600-700 000 Hungarians live in Transylvania because "Hungarian statistics are unreliable". Even the 1930 Romanian census found 1,4 million Hungarian in Transylvania. If the other numbers of S-W are similarly correct you should divide every claim with two or three in thought. Zello 00:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my opinion but excerpts from the article of Ágnes Beretzky, an established contemporary historian who wrote about changing British-Hungarian relations in the first half of the 20th century (link above). Zello 00:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting an answer for my question. Are those numbers incorrect? Because about Seton-Watson as a person, I figured it out that you don't like him. I don't know what he wrote about the Czech/Slovak problem, but from what I read in his books about Romania (written in 1934, a long time after the War) they were written in an objective way. Alexrap 10:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I was curious to find out if Seton-Watson's numbers are correct or not, I did a simple library search and I just found another source giving exactly the same numbers. I will add this reference into the article to avoid any discussion. It is: Georges Castellan, A history of the Romanians, Boulder, 1989. Alexrap 13:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number seems contradicting the number presented later in the article about Romanian percentage in the population and in the electorate. This was added by Panonian who gave his references. It's really improbable that he used pro-Hungarian sources. Zello 14:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also you cited recently an obvious lie from the Castellan book in the Cluj-Napoca article claiming that the town was renamed to Kolozsvár by the Bánffy government in 1897. The town was first called Kolozsvár in the 13th century ("congregare civitatem Kulusuar") and continuously called so since then. After 1867 only Hungarian place names were officially used. (Historical Topography of Transylvania, Banat and Partium, Szabó M Attila, 2003). Castellan problably cites older mistakes (like S-W) or invented totally new ones. Zello 15:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mistake. If you read what I wrote, the name Kolozvar became the official name of the city in 1897 (Klausenburg being used in official documents before that date). Of course the name Kolozsvar existed (and was used) long time before 1897, just as the Romanian name Clus/Cluj (that became the official name after 1920). Alexrap 18:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only Hungarian place names were used in official documents in the KoH after 1867. All the contemporary official toponymical lexicons used the Hungarian name. 1877: "Kolozsvár tjv szkv", 1882: "Kolozsvár törvényhatósági joggal felruházott szabad királyi város", 1893: "Kolozsvár szkv". See the same book with correct citations. It is a simple mistake and a quite serious one that cast doubts on the quality of the book you mentioned. Zello 18:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you started this off-topic discussion about Cluj in here, but since you did, I'm answering. Could you explain to us why did the Hungarian parliament voted the so-called Banffy law (exactly in 1897, as Castellan wrote in his book) - that was saying that all the official names of the villages and towns in the Hungarian Kingdom must only use their Hungarian version - if you say that only Hungarian place names were already in use from 1867? Alexrap 19:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is exactly what I said - before the Bánffy law German and other language names were also used (sometimes) as ALTERNATIVE names, after 1897 they weren't. But the Hungarian versions were official since 1867. I started the discussion here because I have serious doubts about the quality of a book that misrepresents such a simple fact. Zello 11:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we are both saying the same thing, after 1897 only the Hungarian name had to be used. Alexrap 11:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and Castellan said that the official name changed in 1897 - this is not true. Only the status of the alternative names changed. It was a serious mistake that you can't justify. Zello 21:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Georges Castellan has not researched anything about Hungary or the Hungarians, just the Slavs and Romaninans around. [7] Castellan simply took over their numbers, rhetoric, etc., wich is indeed S-W's. A perfect circle. This is why G. C. is wrong. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 20:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice logic. It might work if the people involved were the Zulu and the Inca. But in our case, you cannot study the History of the Romanians in Transylvania without studying anything about the Hungarians. Just as you cannot learn about the history of the Hungarians without knowing anything about Romanians. Whether you like it or not, we live in the same area. Prof. Dr. Georges Castellan (also Doctor Honoris Causa at the Humboldt University of Berlin and University of Poznan) is a well-known historian and I'm sure he did his homework before writing his books. I don't know about others, but I am getting a bit tired of having to ask for permission from some Hungarian users before reading books written by well-known historians. Alexrap 21:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're mixing things: I said, Castellan is one sided, and POV. He simply copied S-W instead of "doing homework", aka researching. Not that he's unknown or unregarded. But, as I showed it above, David Irving is also well known, and regarded (in some circles), so these things can not be benchmarks. They're rather a logical fallacy. OFF It is boring, that anyone, who has at least a hu-1 template on his/her userpage is declared a Hungarian nationalist whatever. ON Ferenc Badiny Sos: is a member of the International Orientalist Congress, WWI (!) fighterpilot-hero, was asked to create a "sumerology" academic division (named Orientalist Studies) on the Buenos Aires (public) University (Universidad del Salvador), wich he led for 40 (!) years, now over 90 come back to Hungary and created this academic division also on a private university in Miskolc, hwere he's teaching for this day, besides this, he's worldwide known, etc. (long list.) You think that this kind of guy, with 50" years of being a university teacher can not talk crap? Well, he did it all in his life. See his LOL views about Jesus, the Hungarians, etc. in a shortened version. S-W is widely known for his anti-hungarian sentiment also. S-W is as good source related to Hungary and Hungarians, as Irving related to the Holocaust or the jews. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 01:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can say anything you want, but it is just your personal opinion. Castellan does not cite anyone when he says that there was an average of one MP for 60,000 inhabitants in the Romanian counties and one MP for 5,000 inhabitants in the Szeklers areas. Which means that he did his own research before writing these numbers. Saying that he simply copied the numbers from another historian (without any reference) is a serious accusation of plagiarism for an important historian which also happens to be Doctor Honoris Causa of 2 important European universities. Could you back your accusations in any way? Because saying that he studied Romanian history, so he does not know anything about the Transylvanian election system is just a stupid thing to say. Alexrap 11:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone mind a fresh opinion in this debate? I cannot stay for a big discussion (very busy in real life right now, I can only log on for a few minutes a week at best) but I will at least state my opinion on this matter. The issue is not whether SW is correct or not, or whether or not his books should be controversial. The issue is, should we cite SW as a source/reference in this and related articles. I would say no. The simple fact is SW's works are controversial, or at least controversial enough that we should be extremely cautious about citing them as fact. Even in instances where SW may be correct, I would say it's still better to find a non-controversial source less likely to provoke disagreement, edit wars, and doubts about the article's neutrality. (That said, SW should absolutely be mentioned in articles about Trianon etc., because like it or not, he played a very important role in those events.) K. Lásztocska 01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we can also say for great majority of Hungarian authors that they are controversial or biased, but I do not see that Hungarian users on Wikipedia object to usage of such Hungarian authors. On the contrary, works of such authors are widely used by some Hungarian users on Wikipedia - in fact works of those authors are used so much that we even can come to conclusion that reliability of anything that Hungarian users on Wikipedia write about history of places outside of present-day Hungary should be under question. PANONIAN (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seton-Watson was cited only for some numbers about the Hungarian election system. These are not his opinions, but numbers taken from Hungarian Statistics. Similar numbers were independently reported by Castellan, a recognised historian who had nothing to do with Trianon, as he was born in 1920. These are 2 independent sources reporting similar figures. I don't understand why one of the Hungarian users does not go to check himself the actual statistics. I presume they are available in some library in Budapest. In this way, we could know even the names of the deputies, not only their number. Alexrap 10:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, having now accurately described Seton-Watson's reputation re: Hungarian topics, the issue is now those parliamentary numbers' accuracy. I would point out that Castellan's numbers weren't similar to but rather identical to Seton-Watson's, and at first glance look to be taken from them (absent any reference at all). I would guess there are reliable K.u.K. records in the German language (Ive not found them yet). If, as you say, SW took these results from Hungarian statistics, then please someone quote these directly, I think we could all live with that and move on. István 13:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this data is very hard to check. Of course I'm able to look up the name of the MPs but we need the the number how much MPs represented the Hungarian and the Romanian part of the population. Imagine a district with 70 % Romanian majority. According to the electoral laws only 5% of the population had voting rights. In the remaining electorate there is 60 % Hungarian majority (more Hungarian with higher social status) and 30 % Romanian minority. They elected a Hungarian MP. Giving that exactly 1000 people live in the district (700 R and 300 H), 50 has voting rights (30 H and 20 R). You can say that 30 H elected an MP and 720 Romanian remained unrepresented. Do you realize that this is a misinterpretaion of facts? I think S-W did the same calculation (if his numbers are correct at all) and Castellan used him as a source. Zello 13:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously the case - although electoral districts may have been well-defined, the ethnicity of those with voting rights is open to interpretation in many aspects (elections and censii didnt happen at the same time) - this almost assures the modern reader that either a) GC took the figures from SW, or b) both GC and SW took the figures from the same source = X. If a) then a different source should be found. If b) then then X must be identified.

Reading Seton-Watson is precisely like reading David Irving - mostly good material, contaminated by his own bias - such a challenge that its best to simply look elsewhere. I think it was Cicero (or Cato - apologies to both) who said that "we never give a liar credit, even when he tells the truth" - for this reason we may accept Census data, but not as interpreted by SW (or copied from him by others).István 14:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another problem with S-W's number that almost every constituency was ethnically mixed (Hungarian, Romanian, German). S-W speaks about Hungarian districts and towns vs. predominantly Romanian districts. But what about the district mentioned above? Was it Romanian or Hungarian for S-W? What about the German towns and districts that S-W simply "forgets". The 20 % number for Hungarians is certainly incorrect because we now the census data of 1913. That's a number that anybody can check. In the bigger Transylvania region annexed by Romania the percentage of Hungarians was 31,6 % see Romsics: History of Hungary in the 20th century, 145 p. One number in the calculation was certainly incorrect and one important number (the Germans) missing - how can be the result OK? Zello 14:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same baseless accusations of plagiarism (Castellan simply copying without referencing)... Plus a new and interesting "almost racist" remark: German sources more reliable than French or English... I, for one, am getting a bit tired of this discussion. Two important historians independently gave roughly the same numbers. And Zello, no he did not ignore/forget anything, he just compared these extreme cases. The German districts were probably somewhere in between. Alexrap 14:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't act like, if someone's views cannot be shared by others. By your logic Alexrap, today's soccer players hv nothing to do with soccer, since they were born after it's invention. This is not serious, is it? If Castellan shares the views of S-W, than C should and must be treated as S-W himself. Or neonazis hv nothing to do with the real ones, since they were born after 1945? No, this logic is in fact a logical fallacy. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 14:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German records certainly should have been more available, seeing as Vienna (not London or Paris) was the ultimate repository of civil records for the areas in question. "almost racist"? LOL.

Compared the cases with one number certainly wrong and the method (Romanian districts-Hungarian districts) as highly problematic. Zello 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The football analogy is a good joke, but nothing more. What I meant is that C cannot be accused for being biased in the same way S-W was accused: as having an important contribution in the Trianon Treaty (which I don't know whether is true or not). I am however quite surprised to see how easily two important historians are labelled as biased by wikipedia users.

There are no French or English records on the Hungarian election system. The Hungarian and Austrian ones are available for everyone though. Someone here tried to imply that the result of English or French research is not as reliable as the result of German research. Which I found quite funny... Alexrap 16:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have established that SW is biased (the first line of his - referenced - wikipedia article quite accurately reflects this) but it should be stated clearly that nobody is calling Castellan a biased historian - only that he unfortunately picked up SW's figures. Nobody impunes him for plagarism either - why he did not reference these figures (to SW or anyone else) is quite beside the point. Castellan is not rejected - only this reference, and for very good reason.

re: German vs French,English records - I (perhaps mistakenly?) assumed your "almost racist" remark referred to my post: "I would guess there are reliable K.u.K. records in the German language" which I cant figure out how anyone could read it as impuning French or English or imply any type of racism. Did you mean this or something else? István 16:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is an undoubtedly false number in the article (20 %) and a calculation made by S-W using this number. I'm against to accept this situation when we know that the correct census number is different. Zello 17:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Istvan, we have not establish anything about S-W. Who are we to establish whether a well known historian is biased or not? The fact that the British Government in 1920 put trust in his knowledge about eastern Europe is a big plus for him, not a minus.

Zello, that number is not at all false. Here is the exact text from Seton-Watson's book: Out of the 74 deputies whom Transylvania sent to Budapest, 35 represented the 4 Magyar counties and chief towns, which together formed only 20 percent of the population, whereas only 30 deputies represented 72% of the population which was predominantly Roumanian. It does not say that the Hungarian population in Transylvania was 20%. 20% was the percentage of the people living in the 4 predominantly Hungarian counties and chief towns. There were other Hungarians living in the other counties (that had a Romanian majority for instance). Alexrap 18:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that anybody else will realize that the sentence should be meant so? I don't think so. It is obvious that S-W picked up some districts, called them Hungarians and picked up others, called them Romanians and made a totally misleading comparison between the two exagerating the disproportion. That's an absolutely biased way of presenting facts - and nobody can check the results. Exactly this is why S-W's books are unreliable sources as he created his own numbers to support his ideology. Zello 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexrap, please try to drop such weasel terms as "well known", "important" and such, and concentrate of the content, wich they created. S-W mixed national identity with territorial integrity, and propagated the dissolution of the Monarchy, since 1914. S-W assumed that Entente victory must bring large-scale losses of territory to the Monarchy; and later, convinced by T. G. Masaryk's arguments for an independent Bohemia to include the Slovak lands, he became an advocate of the complete dissolution of the Monarchy. And he did everything he could to reach his goal. Even falsifying, creating things, etc. Just read Henri Pozzi's book, "Black Hand Over Europe" [http://www.amazon.com/Black-Hand-Europe-Henri-Pozzi/dp/B000GG60O8/sr=8-1/qid=1169756755/ref=sr_1_1/002-7907360-7241660?ie=UTF8&s=books] Pozzi was a french patriot and part of the french delegation in the Treaty of Trianon. He was the first, who denied S-W's claims with clear proofs, and revealed the agreements behind the curtains. Since than, many books born, wich officially, and reliably denied most of S-W's numbers, claims, and self definition. (OFF: BTW radicals and extremists never define themselves radicals, instead usually "Christian, national and social" [8] ON)

Nevertheless, to Tankred: Seton-Watson's scholar hits were in fact two man's hits. The father, R.W. (discussed here), and his son, Hugh. --Vince ^{hey, yo! :-)} 20:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, we may impune SW's impartiality based precisely upon his writings, just as we vigilantly excluded David Irving's references from the 1956 article (over three separate edit wars). In addition to Vince's references, please see: Torrey, Glenn. Review of R. W. Seton-Watson and the Romanians, 1906-1920, by Cornella Bodea and Hugh Seton-Watson, The American Historical Review, Vol. 95, No. 5. (Dec., 1990), 1581 for a critical review of the same book in which the current reference in question is found. If you can find his points being made by others (properly referenced, and not simply lifted from SW) then (as with Irving) that's fair play. However anyone posting Hungarain-related material by RW Seton-Watson (or Scotus Viator) should do so carefully and expect some pointed opposition to the source. István 21:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Zello, I think the phrase is pretty clear, but if you insist, I will try to eliminate any confusion.
• Vince, why do you label as weasel term, calling someone (who was awarded Doctor Honoris Causa by 2 European universities) well-known or important? Who is then well-known in this world? Or shall we completely eliminate these terms from the English vocabular? Another thing I don't understand is why do you try to imply that the dissolution of the Monarchy was not the right thing to happen. The Monarchy was an artificial body. It was clear as the blue sky that it will dissapear. Why was it wrong to create a Bohemian-Slovak state? Why was it wrong to unite Transylvania with Romania? These were just natural things to do and I can't see what is wrong if someone advocated for them. You would have preferred someone advocating for keeping that artificial monarchy? Alexrap 12:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph is still misleading as S-W's calculation itself was intended to be misleading. There was a real disproportion in the electorate and we know the measure of this disproportion from Panonian's number. Romanians: 16,1 percent of the population/9,9 percent of the electorate. Its not so horrible sounding as S-W's number but is real. If you need I can look up the number of Romanian/Transylvanian Hungarian/Saxon MPs, I'm sure that the disproportion will be even bigger (see above how the high census worked in ethnically mixed constituencies). These are real data that we are able to check. Zello 12:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Castellan's calculation gave similar numbers. Also, please remember that the electorate you are talking about only elected about 1/3 of the MPs. The others, were elected by approximately just 1000 people. Checking real data is always useful, so please feel free if you have the possibility. Alexrap 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that Castellan never made an independent calculation but accepted S-W's number. I don't understand your sentence about 1/3 of the MPs and 1000 people - what is this? Zello 13:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that be obvious?

About your other question: You probably know better than I do, so correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know, the electorate only elected about 1/3 of the MPs, the others being elected by another (very limited in numbers) sort of electorate (nobles). Alexrap 13:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a mistake. Probably you mean virilizmus, the election system on municipal level where half of the deputies were elected by the viriles, citizens paying the most taxes (not nobles, you should now that all privileges ceased to exist in 1848). But that's existed on the local level, on parliamentary election only the census mattered. So the percentage of nationalities in the electorate body is the only relevant data we need about the disproportion of the electoral system Zello 17:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OFF: Only 7% of KoH's full +18 population had electorial rights. The suffrage was widened in 1920, by deleting or reducing/lowering the censuses. It still contained only 40% of the total +18 pop. álasztók és választói jog Magyarországon (1920-1947) =Társadalmi Szemle 1998. 7.sz. 105-117. page Vince01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Alexrap: I never said (wrote) that the dissolution is/was bad or not or anything. Simply, dissolution was the opposite of Hungary's goals/intrests for some very obvious reason, maybe you agree with this. I did not spoke about who's well known or who's not, nor defined it, or what, just pointed out, that being well known does not imply that the well known guy's words have/should/etc. to be treated as a Holy Bible or what and linked in. Example: Paris Hilton IS well known all over the world, but obviously, you wont put her pronouncement of "In Europe everybody speaks french"[9] into the Europe article. Simply, arguing with notability is irrelevant, and a logical fallacy. So again: S-W and Hungary were on the different side of the table in transferred and in real sense too. So it is more than obvious wich side did S-W favoured in his books and numbers, and against who. Vince01:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Magyarization or Magyarisation (or "Hungarianization" or "Hungarianisation" etc.) is a common designator applied to a number of ethnic assimilation policies implemented by various Hungarian authorities at various times. These policies aimed at imposing or maintaining the dominance of Hungarian language and culture in Hungarian-ruled regions by encouraging or compelling (often by forcible means[citation needed]) people of other ethnic groups to adopt the Hungarian language and culture, and to develop a Hungarian identity.

This is the paragraph that introduces this article. In which case, how is this too different offcial government policy in almost any nation today? Not to mention the situation in countries everywhere in any country during the time period this article focusses on specifically. In which case why elaborate on the situation in one specific area that was mirrored almost everywhere else, and then elevate it to the status of a topic that requires mentioning in some sort of informative article? Or, why not take every nation that operated to some level of independance in the years 1880 to 1910, take their official language, add the suffic -"ation" and write a corresponding vacuous article on it?

Another typical misguided and misleading Pan-Slavic article. Just hypothetically though, wondering if this so-called magyarisation still existed, would the horrors of the Balkan wars of the 1990s have happened? Hmmm just wondering out aloud... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.61.122.121 (talk • contribs) 21 March 2007.

Pan-Slavic how? And, yes, we do have corresponding articles on similar policies in other countries (e.g. Romanianization, Polonization, Arabization). See Category:Cultural assimilation.- Jmabel | Talk 07:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]