Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:52, 10 June 2009

Click here to leave a new message.

VÉSZHELYZET JEDLIK

Nézzétek meg az electric motor cikket, "Edison" fedőnevű amerikai nacionalista és elvakult baráti köre támadás alá vette Jedlik 1828-as találmányát,elég szemtelen stílusban, és megkérdőjelezik létét mivel szerintük csak magyar hivatkozások propagálják a tényét.

Az eredeti verzó szövege:

The first real electric motors

(devices with magnetic rotating parts)

In 1827, Hungarian Ányos Jedlik started experimenting with electromagnetic rotating devices which he called electromagnetic self-rotors. He used as an illustrative instrument in the university. The first real electric motor using electromagnets for both stationary and rotating parts was demonstrated by Ányos Jedlik in Hungary in 1828. Jedlik built an electric motor-propelled vehicle that same year.

"Edison" vandál baráti körének kételkedő lejárató hangnemü szövege:

Hungarian writers assert that in 1827, Hungarian Ányos Jedlik started experimenting with electromagnetic rotating devices which he called "electromagnetic self-rotors," that he used them as illustrative instruments in the universities, and he demonstrated the first real electric motor using electromagnets for both stationary and rotating parts in Hungary in 1828. He built an electric motor-propelled vehicle that same year. There is no evidence that this experimentation was communicated to the wider scientific world at that time, or that it influenced the development of electric motors in the following decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hungarian diaspora.

Can you please explain how Hungarians are indigenous people in Romania? There are no reliable facts to support this theory. Please explain and consult with discussion page on the same article. Greetings. iadrian (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. See discussion page on the article. iadrian (talk) 07:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

two friends happened by at the same time

You might wish (depending on how you feel) to revisit Sarah Palin and Talk:Sarah Palin to see how editors from the past reappear when their magnum opus is in danger. Note the timestamps on the Talk page if you so desire. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Map

We already have a map with the 1910-census results. And this map is by far more informative then the "red map". --Olahus (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

False accusations

Just see the link Carpaticus (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bonaparte/Archive it seems that far from being false the sockpuppetry was confirmed by CheckUser and since acted on by admins. Hobartimus (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Komondor

Now do you think this dog is a representative Komondor? This kid have seen this picture on Westminster Dog Show article on Misplaced Pages and now he is editwarring that the Komondors are small dogs and this picture is absolutely correct, just because this animal has been shown at the Westminster Dog Show, and that means that this can not be wrong. First I thougt this dog was a Puli. I was arguing miles about this stupid picture on that talk page, that it is misrepresenting the Komondor breed, and gives the wrong idea about the breed, and indeed it does. I was trying to put a remark in the picture that this is a small dog but he constantly reverts it. And keers adding Komondorok.

Warrington (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Now the kid goes and makes adits like this: (I copied his last version:)

Appearance, Size, and Proportions

The Komondors appearance is dignified and commands respect, people unfamiliar with the breed are often surprised by how quick and agile the dogs are.

The AKC Breed Standard states the following for size, weight and proportions of the Komondor:

Males 27½ inches and up at the withers; Females 25½ inches and up at the withers. Males are approximately 100 pounds and up, Females, approximately 80 pounds and up at maturity, with plenty of bone and substance. While large size is important, type, character, symmetry, movement and ruggedness are of the greatest importance and are on no account to be sacrificed for size alone. The body is slightly longer than the height at the withers. Height below the minimum is a fault.

The Fédération Cynologique Internationale Hungarian Standard states the following for size weight and proportions of the Komondor:

IMPORTANT PROPORTIONS
• The body length sligthly exceeds the height at the withers.
• The deepest point of the brisket is approximately on a level with half of the height at the withers.
• The muzzle is slightly shorter than half of the length of the head.

HEIGHT AT WITHERS
Males: Minimum 70 cm.
Females: Minimum 65 cm.

WEIGHT
Males: 50 – 60 kg.
Females: 40 – 50 kg.

The breed shows few faults in type and is largely uniform as it has always been bred with the same target.

Who cares about the American standard? This is a Hungarian dog, and it is also as I found out a Hungarian national tresure, what adoes it matter what the Acf says. It shoul not be put there as a first referrence, and the edits are lousy, and he probably have never seen a Komondor all his life.

Warrington (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you hate Hungarians?

You delete pictures sentences, and important parts of Hungarian history. (Forexample WW1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.112 (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hungary

You reverted my edits just saying "too much deletion". You're obviously mistaken, as I did not delete a single word. If you insist on reverting my revision, I would expect at least an accurate explanation of what you feel I should have changed and what I should have not, because I made so many changes in that single edit that you cannot possibly disagree with all of them.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"You're obviously mistaken, as I did not delete a single word." The diff in question obviously disagrees. Hobartimus (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The diff disagrees? There's no way that's enough to justify your revert. Now I'm asking you, what did I delete?--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't play the newbie user with me I see that your account was created in 2006. You are fully aware that you deleted 17 000 bytes worth of text, so don't play games here. Hobartimus (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

you're an idiot!

you revert edits for no reason, you push your Hungarian agenda even when you know the garbage you put in place is worthless, poorly written and of no use to the community. Learn to write properly in English before you edit. Block me if you want, do you think I can't refresh my IP? Keep pushing your hate mongering and you fanciful history... you might just believe its true one day. But as I said before edit away... its all you have left!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.224.61 (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Note ; After the above IP was blocked for hate speech (ethnic slurs) a while back, he was more recently blocked for a month for "(Edit warring: amending block - it seems that this has been going on for months, persistent incivility too)" The IP is now also threatening to return "do you think I can't refresh my IP?" Hobartimus (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

you should be banned!

Please stop. If you continue to violate Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Černová tragedy, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages.

Note ; After the above IP was blocked for hate speech (ethnic slurs) a while back, he was more recently blocked for a month for "(Edit warring: amending block - it seems that this has been going on for months, persistent incivility too)" The IP is now also threatening to return "do you think I can't refresh my IP?"

Since you continue to provoke users, I will say this. You mentioned earlier that this is the right place to discuss vandalism about other users. Yes, you are right, but it isn't the place to accuse users (to give out warnings) for no reason at all. Continuous of accusing may lead to blocking. So, please tell me what is bothering you. This user showed no signs of vandalism. ZooFari 23:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Charles Simonyi article

Hi, I understand that Simonyi is one of the few Hungarians (the first?) to travel into space. His ethnicity in this case is important and thus should be stated in the opening paragraph. However, as with every biography on Misplaced Pages of a living person, we also state their nationality. I understand why someone would want to state his ethnicity, and I agree that is important in this case. But placing emphasis on his ethnicity over his nationality violates our Manual of Style, which states that "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." In this case, it is. However, nationality is required, meaning "the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." Simonyi became notable when he worked with Microsoft in the U.S., and again when he went into space, and in both cases he was an American citizen of Hungarian descent. If you don't like the phrase "is a Hungarian-born American computer software executive," we can replace it with "is a Hungarian American computer software executive." In both cases we follow Manual of Style guidelines. --98.232.98.144 (talk) 22:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine IP go with Hungarian American if you want. Small correction I don't think he lost Hungarian citizenship so I assume he is a Hungarian citizen as well. Hobartimus (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

His biography states that he moved to the U.S. in the 1960s, during which time Hungary was known as the People's Republic of Hungary (which ceased to exist in 1989, as you're probably aware). I don't believe citizenship would automatically be transferred from the People's Republic of Hungary to the Republic of Hungary (the country's modern incarnation) unless you were actually living there at the time of the transition. Unless Simonyi has lived in Hungary since then, or has applied for dual citizenship, he wouldn't have citizenship by default (there would be no point in that since he doesn't live there). In any case, we couldn't prove he holds dual citizenship unless we could source it from somewhere.--98.232.98.144 (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced that he had Hungarian citizenship at birth (it's sourced that he was born in Hungary, and thus acquired citizenship like all other citizens) so what need to be sourced is the alleged loss of citizenship. However you seem to know a lot are you an expert on Hungary? Hobartimus (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The loss of citizenship occured at the precise moment the People's Republic of Hungary ceased to exist. For example, let's assume you were born in the Soviet Union. You hold Soviet citizenship and move the the United States for a while. While you're away the Soviet Union disappears. You now hold citizenship in a country which no longer exists. In other words, unless you were a citizen of the United States as well, you would technically be a stateless person. If you were living in the RSFSR when the Soviet Union dissapeared you would automatically be granted Russian citizenship, if in the BSSR then Belarus, etc. You would not be granted Russian citizenship if you were not living there just because you lived in the USSR at some point in your life. As far as I'm aware, Simonyi was not living in Hungary at the time of the transition so the Republic of Hungary would have no legal justification giving citizenship to him.--98.232.98.144 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Bajnai image

I'm not sure... I've never dealt with anything except totally free images and fair use images. It seems the information might be here but it doesn't seem clear to me. Sorry. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hungary again?

Why did you revert my edit on Hungary? You didn't even give an explanation in the edit summary.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Jozef Tiso entry

With all due respect, you are simply wrong that Tiso's status as a fascist is uncontroversial. First off, there is widespread disagreement over how to define fascism and even more so clerical-fascism. Secondly, not only Tiso's apologists but also leading authorities on fascism, including Stanley G. Payne, consider him instead to be a conservative-authoritarian. Payne does not even categorize the Slovak radicals as fascists, referring to them instead as protofascist. See Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism, 1914-1915 (London: U. of Wisconson P., 1995), 402-404. The term "puppet" in reference to the state is also contested. See, for example, Tatjana Tönsmeyer, Das Dritte Reich und die Slowakei 1939–1945: Politischer Alltag zwischen Kooperation und Eigensinn (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2003). Jesse47 (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jozef Tiso section

I have undone your four most recent edits. My version did not dispute that Tiso is considered a fascist by some people or that the state is frequently considered a puppet state. My point is that these terms are controversial and contested within the literature on Tiso. The evidence that I provided is from respected scholars. Stanley Payne's work is standard literature on fascism. Tonsmayer's book is one of the most recent monographs on the state and was very favorably reviewed in the American Historical Review. These citations alone prove my point that Tiso and the state are not universally understood as you have presented them. Noting that there is an interpretational divide over Tiso is not the same as rehabilitating him.

In the future, I kindly ask you to engage my evidence in a more rigorous and thoughtful manner before dismissing it. Jesse47 (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jozef Tiso entry

Thank you for your very kind posting. I am indeed a new user to Misplaced Pages and have only an interest in working on the entry on Jozef Tiso. I have extensively researched his life and would like to see the quality of this entry improved. (The present version, for example, is still plagued with factual errors and tends to be apologetic towards him and his regime.) I have no wish to use the entry as a personal forum. Indeed, I had hoped that, as more material about Tiso was published, that the entry would reflect this. Over the years, however, I have instead seen the quality of the entry degrade. I have therefore gotten involved in rewriting it only reluctantly. I do not wish to bring my own arguments into the entry, as I would like to keep the amount of research that I donate to Misplaced Pages to an absolute minimum. I would very much like your help in learning how to contribute without struggling over edits such as we have been doing.

Let us turn to the issue again of whether Tiso was a fascist. There is no question that according to many definitions of fascism that he was. You are also correct that there are a number of apologists who attempt to rehabilitate Tiso in part by denying that he was a fascist. I would agree with you that this is a fringe (albeit discouragingly large) opinion and that it should not be represented in the entry except when identified as such. However, the scholarly community as a whole is split over how to classify Tiso and his state. In terms of categorizing Tiso, here are two more examples from either side:

Walter Laqueur, Fascism: Past, Present, Future (London and Oxford: Oxford U.P., 1996), 148; Chip Berlet, “Christian Identity: The Apocalyptic Style, Political Religion, Palingenesis and Neo-Fascism,” in Roger Griffen, ed., Fascism, Totalitarianism and Political Religion (London and New York: Routledge, 2005), 195.

From my own research, I would say that conservative-authoritarian is perhaps a little more common than clerical fascist. Neither side, however, clearly dominates. This stems in part from the wide disagreement on how to define fascism and in part from the very divergent views on Tiso. Because the divide is so prevalent in scholarship that clearly is not pursuing fringe opinions, I urge you to reconsider your stance on this. One of the things that makes Tiso interesting as a historical subject is the remarkable difficulty people have had in understanding him. I do not believe that the article can claim to have a neutral point of view without recognizing this interpretational divide. While it is important to discourage attempts to rehabilitate Tiso, insisting that he is a fascist when so many leading experts on fascism disagree is simply pursuing an opposite bias.

"Puppet" is also a problematic term in regards to the state. The present trend to move away from this term is because it denies agency to the Slovak regime. If you are a "puppet," you have to do what the master says. In the case of the Slovak deportations and the construction of a fascist/authoritarian state, Slovak politicians were much more independent actors than "puppet" would allow. Thus, using the term "puppet" is apologetic in its own way.

I agree that it is appropriate to describe Tiso as a war criminal, especially in terms of present usage. Legally, however, this is incorrect, as he was tried for collaboration and treason. The latter category included the deportation of Slovak Jews and other crimes against humanity. Within the context of postwar Czechoslovak purge trials, war criminals were Germans and Hungarians, not Slovaks and Czechs.

In terms of sources, I rely on published scholarship or archival documents. Tiso has been understudied; there are consequently few sources on the internet that offer more than a superficial analysis of him. Within Misplaced Pages rules, are internet sources really valued over published or archival ones?

I am very pleased to have established a dialogue with you and hope that this can turn into a collaboration. I trust that we can find a way to improve this entry to the benefit of everyone. I will leave it to you to address the issues that I have raised here in a further rewrite. I look forward to your reply on my talk page. Best wishes. Jesse47 (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jozef Tiso entry

Thank you for your comments. I am glad to see that we are moving towards agreement.

Instead of "puppet," I used "dependent ally of Nazi Germany." One might also use "semi-independent." While the state had little independence in terms of foreign and economic policy, it otherwise enjoyed considerable domestic autonomy. Perhaps you could suggest a more elegant solution.

I agree that the article needs a section on different interpretations and disputes about Tiso, as these are some of the most interesting things about him. I still object, however, to the blanket use of fascist in the opening description, as it strikes me as strongly biased. Could you please make a better case for why we should use it by itself? I assure you that no scholarly consensus on this point exists. Walter Laqueur, for example, is another leading historian of fascism, and he also considers Tiso and his regime to be authoritarian rather than fascist or totalitarian. For the same viewpoint from a classic work on Slovakia, see Jörg K. Hoensch, Die Slowakei und Hitlers Ostpolitik (Köln and Graz: Böhlau, 1965). For a more recent and to-the-point analysis, see his “Slovakia: ‘One God, One People, One Party!’ The Development, Aim, and Failure of Political Catholicism,” in Richard J. Wolff and Jörg K. Hoensch, eds., Catholics, the State, and the European Radical Right, 1919–1945 (Boulder: Social Science Monographs, 1987), 158–181. Finally, see Mark Mazower, Hitler’s Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe (New York: Penguin, 2008), 62. The last source, also viewable through Amazon, is an outstanding recent history by a major American scholar.

In terms of the war criminal issue, I do feel that the ambiguities on this need not be addressed in the opening section, but can be dealt with in the section on his trial. It is important to clarify these points, however, as apologists use this legal distinction to argue that he never committed crimes against humanity.

In the future, I will try to learn how to link to sources in the correct way. The sources that I provided in my last note, incidentally, are also available on Amazon through the search inside feature. Is that good enough, or do I need to learn a different method?

Thank you for your help on learning how to contribute to Misplaced Pages. I would appreciate it if you would propose a revision based on our discussions. I look forward to your reply on my talk page. Best wishes. Jesse47 (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

~

Thanks for the help on the sandbox. But where do we stand on the issue of the lead? Are you still insisting on referring to Tiso only as a fascist there? Thanks. Jesse47 (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcoming users

Hi Hobartimus, I would like to suggest to you that you quickly check the contributions of new users before you welcome them. Vandals, as in this case, should be given the {{subst:uw-vandal1}} message instead. SpinningSpark 16:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Istvan Deak Bio

The source provided for confirming that Deak is the great-grandson of Ference Deak does not prove the contention. It is merely a dedication, noting that his great-grandfather "served Louis Kossuth." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.77.94 (talk) 05:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

typos

Dear H: Re, my activity on Wiki: I correct typos I find in articles, and add references, mostly to unreferenced statements that need support. I clarify statements where there is a linguistic conflict. I add information about unusual or remote places I know about personally, such as, most recently, expanded Kapuvar, Hungary, from a stub to a real article, added information about the iron mines of Dalarna in Sweden, added informagtion about Chief Sitting Bull's writings in the Four Flags Museum in Niles, Michigan, and inserted information about the Catalpa Sphinx to the article about catalpa trees. I am degreed in anthropology (B.A.)from the University of Houston, and have an M.A. in English and Creative Writing, plus an ABD/PhD in 18th century English literature and lingistics (University of LA at Lafayette). I was stringently trained in cancer research and pre-med. As the former wife of an Exxon oil executive-research scientist, with additional training, myself, in geology and paleontlogy, I traveled and lived in numerous countries. I presently live in Istanbul. I am a former newspaper reporter (a stringer with the former Houston Post) and writer, artist and poet able to make a living in these fields. Because I use a Hungarian keyboard and a computer from Sweden, and live in Turkey, sometimes a keyboard typo occurs that I must then fix. Therefore, sometimes there are a few multiple 'saves' in a row. I have published articles on linguistics, ethnicity, and ethnology in literary and social science journals, worked as a child abuse investigator for the State of Florida, taught nearly fifteen years in universities and high schools, have had my life story made into a few documentaries. Some of my poetry and short story efforts have been published in reviews. I hope this is a sufficient introduction. Thank you for your comments and message. truehistoryjvba

typos

As you can see, above, a 'g' crept into my writing of a word in the message. My keyboard is at fault: I do re-read and correct, but sometimes, an extra letter shows up only after it is saved once. I do catch the typos on a new reading. truehistoryjvba

Jozef Tiso lead

Since I have not received a response from you on my earlier question, I will repeat it. Where do we stand on the issue of only referring to Tiso as a fascist in the lead? Are you still insisting on this point? I look forward to your reply.Jesse47 (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Jozef Tiso lead

Before I take the time to do so, why has the evidence that I have so far supplied failed to convince you of my point? Please explain exactly what is lacking in my argument and why internet sources on Tiso (none of which addresses the issues that I have raised) trump the citations from recognized scholarship that I have already provided.Jesse47 (talk) 03:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Hobartimus! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

Hungary

Hi, how's it going? I wonder if you could perhaps stop some of the deterioration on this article - it's turning into an ungrammatical, uncited hash of bits of trivia coupled with odd theories. For obvious reasons, we don't want that to be happening.
Just a couple of examples will suffice. "During the siege, Pope Callixtus III ordered the bells of every church to be rung every day at noon, as a call for believers to pray for the defenders of the city" - probably not relevant to an overview history. "Matthias Corvinus was a true Renaissance prince, a successful military leader and administrator, an outstanding linguist, a learned astrologer, and an enlightened patron of the arts and learning" - even if true, utter hagiography. "Communists promised that Hungary would defend its territory without conscription(possibly with the help of the Soviet Red Army). Hence: the Red Army of Hungary was a very little voluntary army (53,000 men)", "The biggest old cathedrals and most important old Hungarian architecture located in the surrounding countries" - maybe so, but we need better English, sources and context. And so on.
I know this is a big task, but anything helps at this point. - Biruitorul 01:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiso lead

I kindly ask you once again to engage the evidence that I have already provided on the interpretational divide over Tiso. I see no point in proceeding with the subsection if we are unable to reach a consensus on the lead. I am also frustrated that you will not directly respond to my argument. I entreat you once again in good faith to engage in a dialogue with me on this point.

With all due respect.Jesse47 (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of the article about Piréz people

Re: proposed deletion of the article about Piréz people. The intented description of this survey was not to amuse people with hoaxes. There is a social psychologycal bacground as the purpose of the survey was to assess xenophobia. User_talk:Szabozoltantamas —Preceding undated comment added 12:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

Piréz people

The main purpuse for writing this article is to show in an example that peole tend to be hostile against forigners, even if they have never heard about them. Insead of deleting the article other such examples may reveal more about human thinking and behaviour. Szabozoltantamas (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

About John Hunyadi, the father of Matthias Corvinus

You are the falsifier, my friend. You are willingly misinterpreting my actions. I wrote "of Romanian descent" and the cited source writes: “János was of Walachian (a region now in Romania) ancestry” (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/277182/Janos-Hunyadi) By the way, don’t worry, I welcome a dispute resolution by a third party/administrator, and I will proceed to do so if bending the truth continues. --Bluehunt (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"I wrote "of Romanian descent" " --> source writes: “János was of Walachian". Thank you for admitting that you wrote "Romanian" instead of "Walachian". Also "Hungarian general" is in the source and "János" is used in the same source instead of "John" maybe we should use János consistently as per your source. Hobartimus (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Romanian=Walachian (endonym versus exonym) - you cannot argue with that, so I made no mistake. I was discussing his ancestry, not the fact that he was an important Hungarian general or statesman. About using Janos - is not according with Misplaced Pages's policy. Apologizing would be nice.--Bluehunt (talk) 17:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if it is equal than it is obviously not a problem quoting the source exactly and writing Walachian from now on when editing based on that source. I don't want to debate this at length I readded the source that you deleted and wrote Walachian as in your source, which I preserved I don't get what the problem is. Hobartimus (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

your accuztion "Bluehunt outright falsifying source" clearly not true!--Bluehunt (talk) 17:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I considered Walachian different from Romanian and the source wrote Walachian. Hobartimus (talk) 17:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Is not about your opinion, is about the truth. According to you one should say that Magyar is not equal to Hungarian. I am dissapointed. --Bluehunt (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Hungarian elections}}

Please stop removing the pre-1990 elections. Firstly, not all of them are redlinks. Secondly, the fact that there are redlinks is not a reason to remove them; the template shows the years in which Hungary held elections. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my edit summary there, we edit conflicted. Hobartimus (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have reverted again; the template should show all the elections that have happened - previous years are not clutter at all. Hopefully it will inspire someone to create the articles. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Walachian/Romanian

To better understand your point of view, if in your opinion Walachian equals not Romanian (as generally accepted), what Walachian means? Please elaborate.--Bluehunt (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the difference is that Walachian was the term used by the source in the 1400s context and Romanian was the term used by you in the 1400s context. Hobartimus (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The 195.xxx you mean?

Anyway, I'm really frustrated at the inability of coming to terms with an intelligent version in thosearticles. While Romanian nationalism has been promoting the most unintelligent sophistry about how the Hunyadis represent Romanians (the inverted logic one finds in jingoism), the Hungarian nationalist response of removing info about their roots even from several possible accounts is ridiculous. I also supported and will support the Vlach/Walachian/Wallachian terminology for cases where it refers to a vague medieval ethnonym.

In any case, the blind revert war not only damages the texts as is, it prevents them from moving on - and they desperately need better sourcing, proper formatting, much more detail, more neutrality etc etc. I have once tried to deal with at least one of them years ago, and, having been alienated by both sides, I have given up. Interestingly, the superficial changes I made still survive largely in both, outside the fragments "at stake" - which probably means that I did do a good job back then. Still, is there really no way to stop the nonsense and help turn these articles into something informative? Dahn (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

1. http://www.frankfurt.matav.hu/angol/magytud.htm
2. Simon, Andrew L. Made in Hungary: Hungarian Contributions to Universal Culture, p.207. Simon Publications LLC, 1998. ISBN 0966573420
3. http://www.frankfurt.matav.hu/angol/magytud.htm