Talk:Treaty of Trianon/Archive 2

message: What make this so important that it needs to be included in the introduction?
:The winning powers included one economic mainstream within Europe, that is the nations that had gone through rapid progress in the 19th century due to industrial revolution and, to a certain extent, to colonialism (Britain, France, and to a smaller extent Italy). Austria-Hungary also experienced economic progress especially in the late 19th century (without relying on colonization), but remained a European country with a relatively underdeveloped economy.
-- nyenyec ☎ 01:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of economic power in the introduction? 

message: It should be mentioned how the effects of the treaty determined Hungarian foreign and military policy leading up to and including WW2. -- nyenyec ☎ 01:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consequences 

message: What does it have to do with the treaty of Trianon?
-- nyenyec ☎ 01:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[House of Terror]] 

message: As to the discussion about whether Trianon is considered as a national tragedy for Hungary or only for Hungarian nationalists, I can confirm the former. But to cite a neutral source, according to Loney Planet Hungary (by Steve Fallon, 2000): "Trianon became the singularly most hated word in Hungary, and the diktátum is often reviled today as if it were imposed on the nation only yesterday." Vay 13:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a mainstream view or is it constrained to right-wing nationalists, similar to the Pan-Germanism still embraced e.g. by the Austrian FPÖ. Jbetak 14:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering it as a tragedy is fairly mainstream, seeking territorial revision is constrained to the extreme right (without representation in the Parliament). Vay 15:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your answer. Would it be fair to compare the mainstream views of Trianon to those of the Battle of Mohács? Obviously, Trianon was not followed by an enemy invasion, but the similarities are IMHO striking. Jbetak 15:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it would be fair. It is common to describe Hungarian history as a sequence of tragedies (lost battles, failed revolutions): conquest of Tartars, Mohács, Világos (where the revolutionary army finally capitulated in 1849), Trianon, Nyilas takeover in 1944, and finally 1956. It would be interesting to know whether these experiences lead to the pessimism that is so all-pervading in Magyar culture, or this pessimism determined somehow the way of telling the story. BTW the period between 1867 and 1918 is among the few that is regarded as successful by most people (thus further distancing Magyar POV from that of others regarding this era primarily as the period of Magyarization). Vay 15:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tragedy 

message: PANONIAN insists on the fact that plebiscites were held in Alba Iulia and Novi Sad, reverting a version by HunTomy. According to a neutral (Croatian) source: "For this reason, it is surprising that the winning forces of the First World War did not adopt the principle of self-determination (which they themselves emphasized in the context of Wilson’s 11 Points) and conduct a plebiscite in Vojvodina." 1 According to a Romanian source, there was indeed a plebiscite in Alba Iulia: a plebiscite of all Romanians in Transylvania and Hungary, and later an other one in Cernauti: a plebiscite of all Romanians. 2. It is fair to tell that this was not a vote by all inhabitants of the territories concerned, the electorate having been the Romanian community. I will not revert to HunTomy's version, but wait for PANONIAN's sources. Vay 19:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I missed that edit. That is OK for me, of course I don't think Romanians were not happy to unite with Romania, etc. Vay 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: What "Hungarian majority areas" existed at that time? Vasile 17:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roughly where Hungarian communities still live today. Szeklerland, eastern part of Partium, several cities of Partium and Transylvania (Oradea, Cluj, etc.), southern part of Slovakia including Kosice, and norther part of Vojvodina including Subotica. It would have been useful to held plebiscites in ethnically mixed areas like Bratislava, etc. as well. It's history now, so you might even admit that it wouldn't have been a bad idea after all. Vay 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would have been a very bad solution for those peoples. --Vasile 21:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holding plebiscites? Why? Vay 22:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How do imagine the peoples of 1918, after 4 years of war? Had any Alsace and Lorraine, Czech & Sudetland or Poland plebiscite? An unfriendly plebiscite was kept in Sopron, between friendly Hungary and Austria. --Vasile 23:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Had plebiscites been held, there might have been no 2nd WW. Vay 00:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not in 1939, but in 1919. --Vasile 00:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmmm, there's an interesting article by one Sabin Gherman on the previous version of the page by HunTomy. Who is that guy? Maybe you should write an article about him... BTW, don't be naive, HunTomy, Romanians _were_ happy to unite, Wesselényi warned already before 1848 that the historic country was in danger... I guess Gherman is a Transylvanist, or simply a guy fed up with usual E-European provincialism (we could cite Endre Ady about Hungarians and the magyar ugar as well...) Vay 23:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plebiscites 

message: The sentence "Many Hungarians consider the treaty a national tragedy still today." is correct. I can't find any sources right now asserting this, but in fact if you google for "Trianon" and see the bulk quantity of heated discussions in Hungarian going on on various sites, that should be proof enough. KissL 07:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the Hungarian viewpoint, it can be considered a national tragedy: dismemberment of a major regional power, loss of 2/3 of territory and population, establishment of an artificial border cutting through organically developed regions.Árpád 11:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "national tragedy" clause 

message: Speaking about Trianon only the 1920 official census numbers matter not before or later ten years, although the 1930 and 1941 censuses are mentioned to indicate the process of slow decline until WW2. This is not a place for Czechoslovakian propaganda numbers which lack any official census background. In Hungarian sources I didn't find any distinction in the 1920 census like Slovak or "Slovak-speaking" so present any evidence that these higher numbers were part of the 1920 official census and not a Czechoslovakian claim. Zello 19:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quote from the source "the official Hungarian statistical data from 1920 say that 399,170 citizens speak [speak well/have a good command - difficult to translate] of the Slovak language. In reality there were far more Slovaks living in Hungary....". I do not think that someone is able to invent such an number (the other numbers in the book are correct) and given that determining the "Slovak etc. speaking Hungarians" (that was the official name in 1910 at least) was a standard in Hungary (both in 1910 and in 1930), I see no reason to assume that this was not the case in 1920. Juro 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, note that I do not have the "speaking" data for 1920 except for the Slovaks (unfortunately), therefore you cannot compare the 1920 "non-speaking" data and the 1930 "speaking" data (other type of question). E.g. the number of Germans cannot have increased and did not increase from 500 000 to 800 000 - that would countradict historic facts and demographic rules. In reality, the lower number are persons where it cannot be denied that they are Germans, while the 300 000 difference are those Germans where something has been found to declare them not "fully" German although they spoke German. Secondly, I have rounded down the figures. Thirdly, I could agree with you if the differences would be in several percentage points or so, but they are always at least in 50 p.p. or much higher and that cannot be explained by a general population increase. And after all, if the whole population increased, how does it come than that the percentage of Slovaks decreased by 1/3 then (a remark: in reality it stayed at around 400 000 - 500 000 all the time until after WWII, because that number was counted (be)for the population exchange and it perfectly fits the higher figures).Juro 20:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Excellent (and note that I put the word true under quotation marks). Juro 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is good work you are both doing, but I must say some of it borders on OR.  Aren't there any systematic studies of these data by academics with clear conclusions we can cite?  Perhaps multiple differing views?  Dsol 14:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Searching for official census data is no original research. And as for analyses, I do not know such analyses, I only know mentions in (other) texts; in any case, there are no well-known studies or so about this. Juro 15:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minorities

message: I went to the National Library and found the census data at last.
There were the same two questions in 1920 and 1930:
* "What is your mother language?"
* "What languages do you speak?"
There was no question about nationality in Hungarian censi until 1941.
The second question was about bilingualism and produced much higher data for minorities as the first one (of course the same is true for the Magyar language - it was mother language for 7'147'053 people in 1920 and was spoken by 7'722'441 people at the same time).
It is true that the percentage, the absolute numbers and even bilingualism was decreasing in the next decade. I have the same data for 1930 and all numbers are lower.
There is no way to establish the number of minorities from the second question. That question only shows how much people were able to speak Slovak. Among them certainly were people whose parents or grandparents spoke Slovak as a mother language but the family began assimilation. But there were people also who lived together with Slovaks and were able to express themselves on the language of their neighbours. It is the same as many Slovaks in present-day Komárno and Csallóköz speak some Hungarian but they are not Magyars at all. The high number of German speakers is obviosly a cultural phenomenon as German was widely taught in Hungarian secondary schools (ie. the same as the high number of English speakers now). We are not able to separate these two groups among the bilinguals in lack of other data. The problem wasn't raised by me but demographic historian József Kovacsics who presented the census data. Zello 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Juro is right here. --Eliade 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The sum of these numbers is neither 10.4, nor 9.0, but 10.0%:-) Tankred 23:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correct data

message: The article is full of them:
*Some demographers believe...
*On the other hand, many argue that ...
*Many Hungarians consider ...
*Some claim that the real motive...
etc. bogdan 15:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: If a sub-chapter on the nationalities of post-Trianon Hungary is included, a similar sub-chapter should detail the history of the Hungarian minorities in the successor states. Árpád 08:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear fascist vandal, first of all you as a person that should have been banned 6 mpnths ago, should go to h...; secondly, obviously - like always - you have problems with basic rational thinking (things like bigger territory, smaller territory, uneven spread of production inputs etc. are too difficult for you, I know - because everything that does not concern Hungary or Hungarians is too difficult for you). So as an "answer", visit an elementary school again, such an institution will provide you with  the necessary answers. Juro 03:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer is again very simple: the country named Czechoslovakia was created from two parts of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy which were indeed undergoing rapid industrialization during the Monarchy years but the cultural elite in the former Bohemia was German (Prague itself was a German speaking city for much of its history, and for a long time in history, Bohemia itself had belonged to the German empire, to the point that the Bohemian king was an elector of the emperor) and in the former Felvidék it was Hungarian (and to a lesser part, German). Incidentally, even elements of popular culture like Czech beer (Pilsner, Budweiser) were developed by Germans, not to mention Becherovka, which is originally Karlsbader Becherbitter. As for Slovak folk culture, one just needs to listen to typical Slovak folk music to appreciate that much of it has been derived from Hungarian folk music (like csárdás, verbunkos) except that this fact (again, just simple facts, no personal attacks or deletion of the comments of others) has been suppressed by the forced cultural assimilation policies that were going on in present-day Slovakia since 1920. Whatever insults you may write, I can corroborate each of my statements with hard core facts. Moreover, the destruction of the economic unity of the Central European space (or the Carpathian basin for that matter where - as Apponyi put it - the rivers were still flowing towards the Hungarian plain and not towards Prague, but the problem of the Tot rafters trying to sell their merchandise was not the only one that caused the economic and cultural decline of the former Felvidék - a perfect natural geographic and economic unity was dismembered). Finally, if Czechoslovakia was so perfect, how come the greatest Slovak national heros (like Hlinka who ended up on the fascist side) complained about the fictitious "Czechoslovak" nation and being treated as a colony by Prague or having suffered as much during several month of Czech occupation as during decades of Hungarian rule. See this link for instance, written by an independent author: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/bonsal/bonsal11.htm. Meanwhile, it is also important to point out the double standard applied at the peace conference: Bohemia was allowed to retain its historical borders despite including millions of Germans... (in fact it is also worth mentioning that the ratio of the German population was much higher than the Slovaks at that time, since the latter didn't even form an absolute majority in what was to become Slovakia). Árpád 03:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What you maintain about Hungarian folk music is easy to rebut since the Hungarian cultural area (to transliterate "magyar kultúrkör" or "Ungarischer Kulturkreis") is much larger than the Slovak ethnic territory, it is quite unlikely that the Transylvanian folk music (see for example, the Muzsikás band) is of Slovak origin or that the original pentatonic Hungarian folk tunes (that can be related to ancient Asian - Chinese, Ujgur - melodies) or the motifs of folk art (see the tulip which is very common in ancient Persian and Mesopotamian culture) are of Slovak origin Árpád 08:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: if he keeps up you can start an RFC or ask for partial protection of this page, but still please abide by WP:NPA, even with fascist vandals. Dsol 18:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Actually, the Mitterrand quote is an interesting one, but it doesn't say a word about this treaty specifically, so it's better to keep it out of here, at least until there is a very comprehensive and very NPOV description of why and how Hungarians consider the treaty unjust (which is unlikely to happen too soon with all the disruptive nationalist behavior around the article, meaning all "sides" not just one). In such a situation, even if it could be fair to mention some details in the lead, a short NPOV version is better than anything.
As for "ceded", the connotations for this word are clearly not as neutral and non-emotive as the formulation originally in the article. Let's not start comparing the world's web-based dictionaries for a point as simple as that. What's wrong with the current version?
KissL 14:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitterrand 

message: See this map: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/169.gif According to the map, a small part of KOH was also included into Poland. I think this should be noted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Trianon#Frontiers_of_Hungary However, I do not know when exactly this area was included into Poland. Does somebody have more information about this? PANONIAN (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland 

message: hi guys, I've just been looking through old bits of the archive here, and WHAT A MESS. For heaven's sake, you all sound like a bunch of schoolchildren fighting on the playground. How about a new rule for discussion here? How about: no one will call any of their fellow editors a fascist, revisionist, chauvinist, troll, vandal or other nasty names that have been thrown around here, and quit accusing people you don't agree with of being sockpuppets of vandals. Are you here to write an article, or to compete for the title of Most Obnoxious Wikipedian, Most Paranoid, Most Childish etc.? Look, Trianon was a messy affair, there are legitimate complaints (and legitimate good things) on all sides. As soon as everyone here stops flinging ethnic/nationalist insults back and forth, some progress might be made. Try putting conspiracy theories behind you and be intelligent Wikipedians please!! K. Lastochka 03:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what a mess! 

message: I hesitate to stir this pot, but there seem to be no citations for the census data here. I have no reason to think any of it is inaccurate, just that the article fails to cite for it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Census citation 

message: On reading this article I was struck by the fact that most of the contributors seemed to be writing from a Hungarian, Slovak, Romanian viewpoint. I have therefore added some stuff trying to explain why the Allies took the decisions they did. Please amend as you will!
Jameswilson 00:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My stuff 

message: I'm getting really tired of seeing that "weasel words" template up top here. Can somebody please point out the instances of weasel words? I will try and fix them and maybe we can get rid of that ugly tag. K. Lásztocska 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words? 

message: I've undone my yesterday's redirect of "trianon"--it now redirects to the disambig page, how it was before. Sorry for any confusion it caused, I guess I should discuss redirects before going all Rouge on you guys. :-) K. Lásztocska 22:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry about that... 

message: Robert Grower (member of House of Commons in UK): the Benes dictates were already agreed upon in 1918 summer during secret talks. The study of ethnic divergence was started in Nov. 20th, 1918, in France, stating "Slovakia is a mere myth. The Slovak tribes in North Hungary have never made a state before... The borders drawn by French experts do not cross Danube, is not including Bratislava, where for each 14 Slovak there are 86 Hungarian and German".
Henri Pozzi: "Regarding Trianon, it was not about who was right, but rather, who has the interest to have have the truth granted to.(...) The great peacemakers did not have elementary knowledge on the geography, the ethnicity, the history of the nations to settle. Wilson, for example, has always mixed Slovaks with Slovenes. Lloyd Goerge was not more knowledgable. (...) The Romanians behaved like chickens, when they were on the frontline or in the line of fire, and when defeated, they behaved like traitors. After having won the war by others, they had the guts to ask for the reckoning during the Peace Conference."
Henri Clemenceau: "The audaciousness of the Romanians are boundless"
Smuts (South African general): He requested plebiscite for Transylvania, Slovakia, SubCarpathia and Croatia. He told, this right was given to Germany in terms of Holstein, Silezia, end East-Prussia. Even though supported from English, Japanese, Polish and Russian side, the Czech, Romanian and Serb side blocked, in fear of fiasco.
Abbey Weterle (speech in French Parliament in 17 June 1921): "I am confident that in case of plebiscite, neither the Romanians, nor the Serbs would not have received even 1/3 of the votes."
Lloyd George (memoirs, dated 7. Oct. 1929): "The complete documentation, which was given to us by our allies during the Peace Conference was a cheat and untrue."
Nitti (Italian Prime Minister, in his book from 1925): "So far there was one multi-ethnic nation in Carpathian basin, now we have four-five. Hungary will never disclaim Transylvania (...) the revision will have to be done sooner or later."
Benes: "As I have seen the possible dangers, I have started on my own to draft the peace of future in Paris. Almost all what I have done were done by improvising and without bibliography."
Mitterand (told this to poet Gyula Illyes, in 1979, to Hungarian Prime Minister Jozsef Antall, and on a lecture in University of Leipzig): "What happened in Trianon, was a filthy thing".
Prime Minister of Australia, in 1992: "Everybody knows, that Trianon was a huge scam".
Maniu (Romanian Prime Minister): "... during the so-called Hungarian oppression, we, Romanians in Transylvania, had a better life, than now."
Hlinka (Slovak nationalist, in 4/June 1925): "Should the memory of Hungarian Homeland glow within our hearts, as during the thousand-year of Hungarian dominance we have not suffered as much as under the 6 years of Czech dominance" (from the book by USA general Bonsal, "Czechs, Slovaks and Pater Hlinka")
Stipic (leader of Serbs of Hungary): "The six years of Yugoslav regime has brought longing for Hungarian dominance".
Peace!
Abdulka 16:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Admitted statements from Trianon 

message: I have to oppose Squash Racket's new addition. He/she insist on changing a more precise and NPOV sentence "Hungarian politicians have periodically voiced concerns about the treatment of these ethnic Hungarian communities in the neighboring states" into a vague statement "there has been clear doubt about the treatment". Whose doubt? How clear? With no doubt about the doubt? Do we talk about "cler doubt" in all the neighboring countries and for the whole period or just in some of them and for some periods of time (as the cited sources in fact suggest). I believe a vague sentence of this kind reduces quality of this article. As I do not want to be dragged into another revert war with this user, I would appreciate input from other editors of this article, so we can reach consensus here. Tankred 13:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a constant problem since Trianon, I only cited 4(!) sources, because more would be against Wikipedia standards. Periodically suggests 'from time to time'. Frequent reports about beaten up Hungarians is more than just a 'concern'. Squash Racket 13:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you oppose all my edits (title of that section), that sounds like a personal attack to me, for the matter of record. Squash Racket 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not oppose all your edits, only the ones that reduce quality of articles. I do not see any reason why you should consider our disagreement over your particular edit a personal attack against you. Tankred 02:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have also removed a copy&paste text from Britannica. Adding it to Wikipedia without quotation marks, Squash Racket violated copyright of the original authors of the text. For the matter of record, just in case this escalates further, he/she also threatened me in an edit summary if I remove this copyright violation. Tankred 13:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for assuming good faith, I changed that ONE SENTENCE from Britannica. For the matter of record, here is my 'threat': 'once more you remove important referenced material, we will talk to an administrator'.Squash Racket 13:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Squash Racket please assume good faith in working with the other users and please have a more polite attitude regarding them. Nobody want to "atack" you and there is no need to threat other users if they don't agree with you. --R O  A  M  A  T  A A | msg  04:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Your kind words on the Administrators' Noticeboard brought tears to my eyes. Please assume good faith, Roamataa 5 minutes after posting that there. Squash Racket 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Dear Tankred, Roamataa, will we have consensus? There is a saying in Hungary, "if you ask for something you cannot get, you will get something you didn't ask for". Abdulka 10:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Squash Racket's edits

message: "Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among themselves" (treaty). But how we call a contract when one of the parties is not negotiating, only has the right to sign the document? Someone can help with this? Squash Racket 04:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, you want to call it a Dictatum. But then, so should be called the Paris Peace Treaties, 1947, because after Germany was crushed the Allies imposed pretty much what they wanted. The same with Japan. Dpotop 10:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Abdulka and Squash Racket, I agree with you that Trianon wasn't much of a treaty, but we had better leave this one alone. "Treaty of Trianon" is common parlance in English, no question about it, and trying to rename this article would start a wiki war the likes of which none of us have ever seen before. Not worth the trouble. K. Lásztocska 12:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of treaty 

message: Surely in the anals of Wiki History this discussion page must get the award for the most heated and lengthy discussion (argument). When will it end? Surely after another 50 years of peacefully living in the harmonic open borders of the EU will all this bickering and trouble stiring hate be forgotten - thank God! Sidney Bung 20:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am more pessimistic. This area, called Carpathian basin, which was unified for a millineum, should be divided to "divide et impera" for the "great powers". What the bordering nations of Hungary do not understand is that Hungarians are not willing to harm them! Yet politics are desperately working - even now - to seperate this area. Why should this area be unified? (Sorry, maybe the wording is not perfect..., I do not mean unity under Hungarian rule) It's simple! It is plain economics. It was working well in Kingdom of Hungary. This area is a bridge between East and West, North and South. This area is ONE as thermal sources. The area could live from itself as most resources are here, but not if seperated. Other point is common culture, which should be preserved, but can only be if it is ONE. For example Causescu destroyed tombs in Transylvania, as it was evident it was Hungarian. The foundings in Lepenski Vir/Serbia was "faked" to hide Hungarian roots. This is not about the land, guys! It is to survive! Abdulka 14:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should be pessimistic - it'll never happen. Sounds a bit more like extreme nationalism to me - be careful you 'guys' don't go down the road to facism or there will be even more economic trouble, after all - present day Hungary has never had it so good! I don't think I have heard the Brits whinge over losing their empire (quarter of the planet). My advice is think to what Hungary in its present form can offer the rest of Europe - well educated, hard working, honest and reliable people - or am I a pessimst too?Sidney Bung 20:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epic 

message: Why not introduce the Banat Republic into the article? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banat Republic 

message: # That short Gentlemenn is not Apponyi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FiWnTQoBuU vs http://greatesthits-1.tvn.hu/gapponyia.jpg)
# The picture shows the day of the signing of the treaty on 4 June 1920. On that day ther were no negitioation, the terms were fixed in 1919 ... 
# Apponyi was the chairman of the Hungarian delegation between 7 January and 19 May when they resigned.
# The treaty was signed by other small potatos. Apponyi wasn't there ...--fz22 (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture and Apponyi 

message: I wonder how accurate are the data about post-Trianon Hungary. While is normal that German language, which was an official language of the Austro-Hungary and was taught in schools, was spoken not only by ethnic Germans, which is the explanation for such a big number of non-Slovaks speaking Slovak, non-Romanians speaking Romanian, non Serbo-Croatians speaking Serbo-Croatian (5% speaking Slovak but only 1,8% ethnic Slovaks; 2,2% speaking Serbo-Croatian but only 1% South Slavs; 1,1% speaking Romanian but only 0,3% ethnic Romanians)? My guess is that the number of minorities in post-Trianon Hungary was higher but social pressure made some of the citizens of other ethnic backgrounds to declare themselves Hungarians.--MariusM (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the source for that data? 'Bilingual people' means people speaking those languages as a second language? (Especially the data for German is suspicious.) Squash Racket (talk) 05:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just look in our Wikipedia article . I don't know who added those data in the article and on which basis (maybe official census?). I remember reading in some nationalist Romanian writings about 80000 Romanians left in post-Trianon Hungary (and even about 250000), I never thought that those are reliable data, it was a surprise for me to see in this Wikipedia article that there were 88828 Romanian speakers in post-Trianon Hungary, I start thinking that maybe the 80000 figure which I saw but never trust before can still be close to reality.--MariusM (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks for explanations.--MariusM (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Minorities in post-Trianon Hungary

message: The text of the Treaty should either be in the references or the external links. It is mentioned twice in the article right now. Squash Racket (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Text of the Treaty

message: this article is a disgrace for english wp, all is reduced to borders, but this is only a part of set of problems, I looked for some another wp's and they have not excellent, but better article, hu.wp too
I hope for (wrong no marked cards by me):
* prehistory of treaty
* the way, the story - parts of monarchy are members of winning allied coalition
* is possible, that hungary and austria lost propaganda battles and propaganda war?
* desciption of treaty
* some backround information
* comparison to another treaties in pariser conference
* is this all happened because brutal hungarisation politik in hungarian part of Austria-hungary 1867-1918,
* was austria-hungary realay a prison for some nations
* discription of negatiaton and signing
* behaviour of paris, prague, belgrad, moscow, berlin, washington, warsaw, roma, vienna --Nina.Charousek (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a free encyclopedia, so feel free to improve the article with sourced academic, NPOV informations.Baxter9 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: disgrace for en.wp

message: I checked the history of this page. Good luck fighting over the same edits for the next 10 years lol. This distupe will never end. I leave the fighting to the more national minded people. Cheers to the EU! we'll all meet up there, anyway. :D  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizso (talk • contribs) 02:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  dispute 

message: --Bizso (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic section added 

message: I have noticed some edits stating In reality, Romanian troops had incomparably less casualties than either Britain or France, That's quite a gross falsification being quite easy to demonstrate the lack of the judgement of the editor. The causality figure given (any reliability in http://www.kilidavid.com/History/World%20War%20I.htm ?) states for Romania 335,706 KIA and because, at that time, Romania had less than 8,000,0000 people it means that, actually, the causality rate is actually comparable if not higher than that sustained by France , for example. That's quite simple arithmetic and did not expect seeing it disputed.
Causality rate Romania = 333,707/8,000,000 = 0.042
Causality rate France = 1,375,800/40,000,000 =0.035--Tziganul (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok but you should still provide reference to support that. --Bizso (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Please, describe what is false information and malicious edit in the article? --Bizso (talk) 23:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

text: This describes why the secret pact was arranged and what events led to the annexation of Transylvania to Romania. --Bizso (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, but if that's the case should we really mention the WWI events? Remember, we talk here about political consequences and not about the causes. So, let's focus at the consequences of the Treaty and , I think, you should take out from there your recent edits that do not refer, directly, to that.--Tziganul (talk) 01:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This WWI event has much relevance to this treaty so I don't see why it should be taken out. --Bizso (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

text:  It doesn't go into details at all, but still gives some useful insight to the reader on the direct circumstances of how Transylvania was gained by Romania; which is a political consequence of the treaty, by the way...--Bizso (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanian Army casualty rate during WWI

message: Ok, it's bad enough the article is nearly copy-pasted from http://www.hunsor.se/trianon/treatyoftrianon1920.htm, but the fact that the source used is in fact a website about political activism for "national minorities" in neighboring countries really is pathetic. Politics and propaganda should not be passed up as history on wikipedia. At the very least change the wording on the sentences and use more than one source when writing over two pages of information. Romano-Dacis (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Any proof of that claim? Any proof whatsoever? Why not hunsor.se copy pasted from wikipedia? You do realize that many websites copy text from wikipedia sometimes parts sometimes full articles? Some minimal amount of proof would be nice. Which wikipedia user did this alleged copy paste by the way? Hobartimus (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, but it's the other way around. Websites copy Wikipedia and not vice versa.--Bizso (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article copy-pasted from hunsor.se

message: I've attempted to find some middle ground between the two positions currently being tossed back and forth. I've reinstated the full name (with link) to the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia in the first mention of the region, but I think it's unneccessary (in the interest of linguistic elegance and brevity if nothing else) to keep re-iterating the full name throughout the article--once it's been established in the early part of the article, the intelligent reader will easily be able to interpret later references to "Croatia-Slavonia" correctly.  K. Lásztocskatalk 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatia-Slavonia