Talk:Greater Hungary

message: I have protected this page. The edit war going on here is absolutely needless - after all, it is about a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages should not even contain any meaningful content other than providing links and very short summaries of what the linked articles are about. The order of articles should ideally be irrelevant - alphabetical, ideally. We should operate on the basis of network neutrality at disambiguation pages rather than prioritising pages we believe fit our ideologies about certain things better. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 14:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So? What solution you propose to solve this dispute? PANONIAN 19:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is exactly what should be done here (but it is not me who should stop with it...) PANONIAN 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Editorial? Well, according to editorial article, "an editorial is a statement or article by a news organization, newspaper or magazine that expresses the opinion of the editor, editorial board, or publisher", and that are really not my intentions. My concerns were about fact that main meaning of disambiguation page should be article that contain exact words from the title of disambiguation page (what would be reasons not to do it like this???). Also, the correct description of the aims of Hungarian irredentists is that they want to enlarge borders of Hungary, while claim about "restoration of borders" are only their proclaimed "reasons" for their aims, but not their aims themselves. PANONIAN 21:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it would not be restoration of borders because post-1918 Hungary and pre-1918 Kingdom of Hungary are not same countries - to restore borders of the country you first have to restore the country which do not exist anymore. Therefore, irredentist claim that they want to "restore" borders is simply an logical falacy. Their true aim is to expand borders of the new country which never in the past had such borders. Regarding my point that article that have in its title exact words from disambiguation page is a main meaning of disambiguation, you still did not showed why this point would be wrong - the importance of the Kingdom of Hungary for European history simply have nothing to do with this issue because in European literature Kingdom of Hungary is exactly known as Kingdom of Hungary, while Greater Hungary is very rare name used for it. On the contrary, political concept of Greater Hungary is known under this name only. PANONIAN 15:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't do that Google search, did you? --KIDB 18:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What that have to do with my previous point? PANONIAN 20:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Panonian, I mean absolutely no offence by this comment, but I speak English better than you do. I think a lot of times you read sinister/incorrect/slanted meanings into things that aren't really there, and a certain level of unfamiliarity with the language might be part of that. I can't believe we're still fighting over such a trivial issue btw, and I will list this on WP:LAME as soon as I have time. K. Lásztocska 00:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: No, this is debate in which order we should list links in this page. Anyway, I would really like to hear opinion about this from some other users that do not live in Central Europe (or not originating from it). PANONIAN 18:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw, current version of the page not only that it is not in accordance with other disambiguation pages, but it also reflect irredentist opinion: "we once had big country that evil neighbours stole form us and now we want to restore it" - I am sorry but current version of the page sound exactly like this. PANONIAN 18:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Pannonian, the text is quite neutral now, there are no expressions there like "evil neighbours" or "Hungarian irredentists". --KIDB 20:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, text is not neutral. I already asked you what term you want to use instead "Hungarian irredentists" - you never answered (whose political concept is that if not irredentist?) Second, the version of the page that use irredentist rhetorics that political goal is "restoring the borders of the former Kingdom of Hungary" is far from neutral. The political goal is englargement of borders of Hungary and every similar irredentist concept in other countries have various historical, ethnical or even geographical "justifications" for their aims and therefore claim that such goal is "restoration of borders" is just example of irredentist "justification". PANONIAN 21:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Why you reverted my edits? I added to the article sentence written by Hungarian user K. Lastochka in Greater Hungary (political concept): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Hungary_%28political_concept%29&diff=141303794&oldid=141150588 The fact is that "justifications" for creation of Greater Hungary presented by Hungarian revisionists were not only historical but also ethnic, geographical and economical and therefore the "restoration of historical borders" was only one of these "justifications". However, the ethnic justification was in fact the major one because without it all other would be totally ridiculous. So, let just have here an NPOV sentence agreed by several authors, while revisionist justifications are all already described in Greater Hungary (political concept). PANONIAN 23:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Koppany...

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Hungarian irredentism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 16:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress