Talk:Magyarization/Archive 1

message: The following was recently, anonymously placed in the "See also" section. I've cut it to here. It certainly does not belong in the "See also" section. It probably does not belong in the article, at least not without a lot more context and a citation. 
:[Begin cut material]
:A constitution law, passed by the Provisional National Assembly on April 11 , 1946, declared the following:
:Only Czechoslovak citizens of Czech, Slovak or other Slav race possess the suffrage. (Clause 3)
:Only Czechoslovak citizens of Czech, Slovak or other Slav race may be elected. (Clause 4)
:[End cut material]
Obviously, this refers to Czechoslovakia, though it does not say so explicitly. But, more importantly, what is it doing in this article? This is an article about Magyarization, not about Slavicization. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Odd addition, cut

message: Hungarians and Slovaks lived together for over a thousand years without ethnic war or "cleansing." Jews, Slovaks, Germans, Hungarians, and others flourished in what was then "Upper Hungary." Slovak publications, language, schools, churches, were hardly oppressed, especially seen in a pre-20th century light. Slovak nobles had both Hungarian and Slovak serfs as did Hungarian Nobles. 
A tiny Hungary only led to an easier Nazi and Soviet takeover (as was predicted in 1920). The official language of Hungary was LATIN in respect of the various nationalities. This egalitarian, yet "elitist," language stunted national growth; Hungary initiated a plan for a common language. Some saw this as "Magyarization" despite the fact that no laws were passed prohibiting the use of any mother tongue until the Slovaks passed their "language purity law" in the 1990's. Pretty sad. Now that English is becoming the common language and the EU will weaken what some see as artifical borders, will these nationalists call it English-ization? It never ends. Upper Hungary once had equal Slovaks and Hungarians until the Benes decrees forced people off their lands. This was a dark period in European and human history, but perhaps so dark, it remains unseen.
No part of the above is true as far as the Magyarisation period is concerned. Actually the opposite is true.Juro 16:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, saying that the system in medieval Hungary was "elitist but non-discriminating" is false in what Romanians are concerned. As early as 1438 they were denied political rights through Unio Trium Nationum. Coming back to recent times, it's pretty sad to think what could have been accomplished, given that many Romanians, supported a federal "Great Austria". The European Union may be today able to achieve what the Habsburg empire could not because of the pressure of Hungarian nationalists. :) However, take my support to "Great Austria" at a second degree. I believe noone at the time was ready for such generous forms of government (just take a look at the transcripts of the Vienna parliament before WW1). Even today, and even in the most developped countries, ethnic conflicts exist. This may mean that nations/ethnies are still important, and that the relations and conflicts between nations will shape our future for a long time. Dpotop 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I basically concur with Dpotop, with only the additional remark that the exclusion from the Unio Trium Nationum was on the basis of religion, not ethnicity. - Jmabel | Talk 20:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Magyarization? Please...

message: "The word 'Israelite' denoted only religious affiliation and was free from the ethnic or national conotation attached to the word 'Jew', which they therefore regarded almost as a derogatory term." (Philip Roth) Even today, "official" organizations of Hungarian Jews (eg Mazsihisz) regard Jews as a group of Magyars with a particular religion - that's why Jewish minority is not recognized as a national minority under the relevant act. There is a new movement, however, whose objective is the amendment of that act to recognize Jews as national minority (www.zsidokisebbseg.com). 195.56.21.218 17:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jews in Hungary

message: I've corrected some grave exaggerations and mistakes. (1) Petőfi was of Slovakian origin: he was a Lutheran. Maybe he had some Serbian ancestry way back in history, but please show me another Serbian Lutheran in 19th Hungary. (2) The use of minority languages in the press and education was not prohibited. If someone had the money, they could have as many newspapers and private schools in whatever language as they wanted. Which was of course unfair as Hungarian-speaking newspapers and schools were financed by the state. (3) There were no mass murders in North Transylvania in 1940-1944. There were atrocities in the course of which dozens of Romanian civilians were murdered during the first few days when Hungarian troops reoccupied North Transylvania after the Vienna Award. These were outrageous events, but they did not constitute mass murder. (4) Apponyi did not abolish confessional schools: the whole education system would have collapsed, and the powerful Catholic church in Hungary would have been quite upset:) --Tamas 18:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Petőfi was actually both of Serbian and Slovak origin, his father's name was Petrovics István (a butcher and tavern-owner of Serbian ancestry), his mother was Hrúz Mária (a domestic servant of Slovak ancestry), just to be exact. Enigma1 23:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Petrovics is only a name of Serbian origin, but in reality as far as I know the father was either Magyar (Hungarian sources) or Slovak (Slovak sources). Juro 06:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction

message: Hi Erdelyiek! I find the tables you inserted are relevant and fully cited, so they definitely have a place in the article. Nonetheless, they are a bit long. Maybe we should summarize what is in these tables in a few sentences and then provide the tables in the notes section?--Tamas 19:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is said that you are what you read. Who is this author Raffay Ernő? --Vasile 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

text: He is a Hungarian historian. He had a brief stint in politics too, but his historical works are considered reliable, and he would surely not falsify data.--Tamas 20:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, we don't need the table in the article. What these tables prove is that there were several Romanian newspapers, so we can simply cut this sentence from the article: "Although there were few notable exceptions, virtually all newspapers were published in Hungarian", and leave the table on the talk page as a proof that that statement is false.--Tamas 20:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that these tables don't belong in this article, but they would be appropriate somewhere else, maybe an article on Romanian culture in Transylvania. Any suggestions? - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tables on Romanian schools and newspapers

message: I see that this article is tagged as both factually disputed and POV disputed. Can we start with the factual matters first? Precisely what in the article is factually disputed? - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything obvious as far as factual accuracy is concerned. Dmaftei 20:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Since no one has mentioned anything in a week, I am downgrading to an NPOV dispute. Now, can someone indicate what they see as POV issues in the acticle? - Jmabel | Talk 21:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputes