Original Research[edit]

I have removed the quote from the lead which stated that "More than 1.5 million economic migrants moved to the United States from Kingdom of Hungary between the 1900-1914 period. This mass migration also had huge effect on the ratios of ethnic minorities in Kingdom of Hungary, because more than 2/3 part of these immigrants in the USA belonged to the ethnic minorities". The main reason of my removal was that it looked very much like original research, as the cited source (Anna Mazurkiewicz: East Central Europe in Exile Volume 1: Transatlantic Migrations, Publisher: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014, Pages: 141-142) only talks about the minorities among the migrants to US, but it does not talk about its "huge effect on the ratios of ethnic minorities in the Kingdom of Hungary". If someone thinks that the book does talk about the "huge effect" of migration to the US on the ratio of ethic minorities of the Kingdom of Hungary, please, provide the exact quote here. Thank you, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 00:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People over 80 IQ can handle such things. You have two type of chocolate in a box, the round type (Hungarians) 50% and square type (minorities)50%. If you took much more (2X more) square type chocolate out of the box, the ratio of the round type chocolate will increase. Everybody over 80 IQ must handle such primitive tasks.--Cumberstone (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
blocked account (Cumberstone) - This account is a sockpuppet of Stubes99

"Magyarized names" is a false expression/term[edit]

Because name changing was always a result of personal decision, and it was not directed by state or laws/decrees. The better usage would be: X Y people changed their names, which express that it was their own personal decision.--CumbererStone (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blocked account (Cumberstone) - This account is a sockpuppet of Stubes99
The article says "When referring to personal and geographic names, Magyarization refers to the replacement of a non-Hungarian name with a Hungarian one". This doesn't mention personal decision or otherwise. Either way we need to note that they changed their name to a Hungarian version. Nigej (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-zation -ation -sation etc... Latin inflections usually refer to a forced process, since there were no such law decree order etc... it happened with personal decisions. Therefore it sounds a weird and incorrect term for name changes.--CumbererStone (talk) 12:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blocked account (Cumberstone) - This account is a sockpuppet of Stubes99
Personally I don't see that at all. There may have been no law forcing people but there was certainly pressure exerted, which is perhaps why the word has certain negative connotations. See https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Magyarization which doesn't mention force but has quotes "The main instrument of Magyarization continued to be the schools." and "In the face of such resentment, the process of ‘Magyarization’ really was relentless – a Slovak could sit in his mountain fastness in a folk costume or he could move to Budapest or Transdanubia, learn Hungarian and get a factory job.", both quotes indicating social pressure to change. Just saying they "changed their names" gives a false impression in my view. Nigej (talk) 14:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]



There were not many Hungarian schools in the villages where minorities represented the majority. It happened only in cities, which had traditionally Hungarian and German majority. Remember the fall of the famous Lex Apponyi law, the teachers of the ethnic minority village schools could not speak Hungarian, thus the teachers could not teach the Hungarian language for the minority children. The number of Slovak/Romanian speaking villages increased during the great (imagined) oppression in the 1867-1910 period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CumbererStone (talk • contribs) 15:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blocked account (Cumberstone) - This account is a sockpuppet of Stubes99
The changing of names was inspired by Magyarization. There were incentives to speaking Hungarian and presenting yourself as Hungarian, so people did so. --Shkrata (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Myth-busting: ministers of Kingdom of Hungary with Germanic and Slavic names[edit]

Ministers with Foreign names 1867 – 1944

dr. Pauler Tivadar Szlávy József dr. Trefort Ágoston Wlassics Gyula Berzeviczy Albert Jankovich Béla Haller István

Klebelsberg Kuno Hóman Bálint Rajniss Ferenc

Aulich Lajos

Wekerle Sándor

Linder Béla Schnetzer Ferenc Friedrich István Sréter István Belitska Sándor Rőder Vilmos

Vukovics Sebő Pauler Tivadar Perczel Béla Fabiny Teofil Plósz Sándor Gegus Gusztáv Günther Antal Wekerle Sándor Grecsák Károly

Ferdinandy Gyula Vladár Gábor Valentiny Ágoston Ries István

Wenckheim Béla Rajner Pál Hieronymi Károly Ugron Gábor Wekerle Sándor

Samassa Adolf Beniczky Ödön Semadam Sándor Ferdinandy Gyula Klebelsberg Kuno Rakovszky Iván Scitovszky Béla Keresztes-Fischer Ferenc Jaross Andor Schell Péter

Duschek Ferenc Szlávy József Teleszky János Wekerle Sándor Gratz Gusztáv

Miákits Ferenc Peidl Gyula Grünn János Walko Lajos Bud János Reményi-Schneller Lajos Gordon Ferenc

Somssich József Gratz Gusztáv Wenckheim Béla Scitovszky Tibor Walko Lajos Roszner Ervin

Klauzál Gábor Gorove István Trefort Ágoston Feilitzsch Artúr Nyisztor György Vántus Károly Rubinek Gyula Mayer János Schandl Károly Marschall Ferenc Sztranyavszky Sándor Jurcsek Béla

Horánszky Nándor Láng Lajos Hieronymi Károly Friedrich István Heinrich Ferenc Rubinek Gyula Herrmann Miksa Bud János --CumbererStone (talk) 08:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we put the "Magyarization" into an international context?[edit]

In July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted the world's first laws on ethnic and minority rights. It gave minorities the freedom to use their mothertongue at local administration, at tribunals, in schools, in community life and even within the national guard of non-Magyar councils. However these laws were overturned after the united Russian and Austrian armies crushed the Hungarian Revolution of 1848. After the Kingdom of Hungary reached the Compromise with the Habsburg Dynasty in 1867, one of the first acts of its restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868).

The situation of minorities in Hungary were muchmore better than in contemporary pre WW1 Europe. Other highly multiethnic /multinational countries were: France Russia and UK.

See the multi-national UK:

The situation of Scottish Irish and Welsh people in "Britain" during the English hegemony is well known. They utmost forgot their original language,only English language cultural educational institutions existed. The only language was English in judiciary procedures and in offices and public administrations. The contemporary Irish question and tensions are well documented. In Wales Welsh children were beaten by their teachers if they spoke Welsh among each others. This was the infamous “Welsh Not” policy... The situation of Ireland was even a more brutal story. It was not a real "United" Kingdom, it was rather a greater England.

See the multiethnic France:

In the era of the Great French revolution, only 25% of the population of Kingdom of France could speak the French language as mothertongue. In 1870, France was still similar-degree multi-ethnic state as Hungary, only 50% of the population of France spoke the French language as mothertongue. The other half of the population spoke Occitan, Catalan, Corsican, Alsatian, West Flemish, Lorraine Franconian, Gallo, Picard or Ch’timi and Arpitan etc... Many minority languages were closer to Spanish languages or Italian language than French) French governments banned minority language schools, minority language newspapers minority theaters. They banned the usage of minority languages in offices , public administration, and judiciary procedures. The ratio of french mothertongue increased from 50% to 91% during the 1870-1910 period!!!

The situation in German Empire was well known (Polish territories and Sorbs)

Just see the high contrast between Kingdom of Hungary and contemporary pre WW1-era Europe:

Magyarization was not so harsh as the contemporary western European situation, because the minorities were defended by minority rights and laws. Contemporary Western European legal systems did not know the minority rights, therefore they loudly and proudly covered up their minorities. 1.Were there state sponsored minority schools in Western European countries? NO. 2. How many official languages existed in Western-European states? Only 1 official language! 3. Could minorities use their languages in the offices of public administration in self-governments , in tribunals in Western Europe? No, they couldn't. 4. Did the minorities have own fractions and political parties in the western European parliaments ? No, no they hadn't. 5. What about newspapers of ethnic minorities in Western Europe? They did not exist in the West.... We can continue these things to the infinity.--CumbererStone (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

blocked account (Cumberstone) - This account is a sockpuppet of Stubes99 - This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
Probably it was no worse than in other countries. However that doesn't mean it didn't exist. If you look at migration to the USA you can see that many immigrants did Anglicize their names. There was no law that said they must do it but they preferred to, to seem less like outsiders. I'm no expert but I seem to remember reading about how they tried to force the Croatian railway system to use Hungarian when all the passengers and staff spoke Croatian; which tends to show a heavy-handed approach. Nigej (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Magyarization was worse than what happened in many other countries. In the US it was encouraged. In Hungary, there were strong incentives to present yourself as Magyar. --Shkrata (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No way, Hungary introduced the first minority laws in Europe, being as well the pioneer of getting cirticism how the laws were kept or any lack of appliance punished, but we should not evaluate this question only the narrow viewpoint of those who critize. We should not as well confuse the Magyarization of family names with "presenting yourself as a Magyar", etc. It is a fact Hungary provided more rights contemporarily as well as i.e. the mother countries of the criticist, however it is also true Hungary had mostly more minorities than these countries, however by principle it should not be decisive. Croatia is a special field, not being part of Hungary, not really conparable of the other areas. It is true after a point adminsitrative actions promoted the Hungarian language and identity, however the famous lex Apponyi is often misinterpreted since it did not ban the minority languages, just compulsorily introuced Hungarian next to them, as it is very likely to speak the language of the state you live, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC))Reply[reply]


I already gave a chess mat for the propnents of the "forced name magyarization" fantasy by citing names of ministers of Hungary. So if you could be even a minister....than this is nothing more than a joke.--CumbererStone (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A long list of names doesn't prove anything. Given that roughly half the population were non-Hungarians you might expect half the ministers to have non-Hungarian names. Anyway most of the names you give do have Hungarian christian names (István, Ferenc, János, Béla, etc.) which seems to show that they (or the ancestors) had Magyarized at least part of their names (assuming they had non-Hungarian origins), so I'm struggling to see your point. Nigej (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The topic was about the family names. Now, after you feel that you will lose this surname debate, you changed the topic. Most people get tranlatable chrisian names, because people were religiuos Christians that time. "you might expect half the ministers to have non-Hungarian names" It sound very nazi like for me, like the numerus clausus (racial quotas), where exact ratios were determined by laws. That anti-liberal racial quata policy policy was fell with Adolf Hitler and his followers in 1945.--CumbererStone (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not claiming that all non-Hungarians changed their names. I'm objecting to your claim that there was no pressure on non-Hungarians to change. There is a massive middle ground where there was a certain pressure to change, many did change and many did not. A list of 35 ministers (out of ?) with non-Hungarian surnames proves absolutely nothing. And the fact that they have Hungarian christian names tends to indicate that they've gone half-way down the Magyarization route. I'm not talking about quotas - its just common sense that in a country with half the people being non-Hungarians and with equal opportunities, you might expect half the ministers to be non-Hungarians, just on a probabilistic argument. Of course we know this wasn't true - the whole system was dominated by the Hungarian half and everyone knew it. Nigej (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just technical remark, given names are not decisive, since as well in whole Europe baptized names have been adminsitered in Latin (i.e. Josephus), and in the respective states it has been used as it's variant in the local language (Joseph, József), so it cannot be connected to Magyarization. (i.e. the Slovak Anton Bernolák, Church papers conatined the Latin version of Antonius, but Slovaks or Hungarians may name it on their language). If you'd refer to the given names outside the Church papers in civil adminsitration, the turning point to Hungarian is 1895, but that is again another issue, but let's do not call the ministers "non-Hungarians", as it's clear beyond our discussion that nationality is more complex to be decided on the origin of the names, as it has as well no connection to any "halfway-route of Magyarization".(KIENGIR (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Just another technical point. I'm not keen on the term "minority" languages/rights/schools/etc., which gives the impression that the Hungarians were a majority, when the reality is that the Hungarians were only half the population (give or take). Nigej (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should use the words and tehir interpretation properly. Hungarians were the majority, the largest ethnic group. Of course, others may view it like Hungarians vs. non-Hungarians summed up, then the case looks different, but we should not enter to a field like the classic debate of the elections, were a party wins with around 30 % percent, being the majority, however if we'd add all the opposition parties together or the non-voters, it would be a dominant minority.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC))Reply[reply]
A majority is >50%. Largest could be anything. The two terms are completely different. Hungarians were the largest but not necessarily a majority. This is why we shouldn't be using "minority". It might be that all ethnic groups were a "minority" including Hungarians. Nigej (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hungarians were 53% in Hungary proper, not less then Slovaks in Upper Hungary or The Romanians in Transylvania in the era of Trianon.--CumbererStone (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please use the proper term Slovakia, and not "upper Hungary". Shkrata (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slovakia was invented and created only in 1918. It would be anachronistic and weird to call it Slovakia in the era of Austro-Hungarian times.--CumbererStone (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This fringe theory really does not belong to Wikipedia. Example "in Liptauer Comitat in Slovakia", Jicinsky 1586. In other sources of German origin also Windenland, i.e Chronicle of the Council of Constance. In Latin, Slovakia was called Slavonia, Sclavonia i.e. "et in Slavoniam as Carpatum montem quam etiam in Hungarian" (Ziegler, 1511) or "Cum ego per tam ardua itinera tantosque coles et silvas per Sclavoniam cogebatur transire (Netolicky, 1574), etc. --Ditinili (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Slovak is one of the youngest ethnonym in Europe, the "Slovak" term was born only in the 15th century, in the early modern period. Without own ethnonym, we can't even speak about identity or ethnicity. Slovaks were early modern period mixture of immigrants: Czech Hussites from the N-west, Polish immigrants from the north, Local Hungarians, nomadic Vlach settlers in Eastern Slovakia, Rusyn people in the east, and some German settlers. This modern mixture had a clear impact on various Slovak "dialects". In the reality this were not dialects but rather different languages. This mixature is mirrored in their many old languages Until the birth of the unified "Central Slovak" language in the 19th century, some of the Slovak dialects were closer to Czech language, others were closer to Polish language another dialects were closer to the Rusyn language. So Slovaks did not have even a common mutually intelligible language (which is a corner point of a real nation or an ethnic group) until the Slovak linguistic reforms of the 19th century. You can read about it here: https://www.101languages.net/slovak/dialects.html?fbclid=IwAR19gTNaoArw_vhLG3A5bJoXDZ2UWYC7BgHvInt6S66q2NQxnKIJOuaRrzo The common unified mutually intelligible Slovak language was spread by the Czechoslovak school system during the interwar period and the communist era, which remained the central policy and goal of the Czechoslovak governments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CumbererStone (talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And similarly we shouldn't be using "Hungary" to refer to the Kingdom of Hungary. Hungary as an independent state was only created after WWI. The pre-WWI Kingdom of Hungary was a large chunk of the Empire given autonomy over domestic matters, rather like current-day Scotland, and certainly not a "state". Nigej (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In other words, Slovak is mutually intelligible with Czech, but Slovak dialects were not mutually intelligible. Nice. OMG.Ditinili (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nigej,
No, you try to sometimes to refer some possible different interpretation to the proper terminologies that my be differ only by the reference point. >50% is the definiton of absolute majority, not majority. In technical terms, like population or the election example I referred, majority means the largest percentage. Minority, technically in state and/or population context refer to ethnic groups, that are smaller in number the like country's dominant majority who's the state is connected (in modern terms as well, officially acknowledged ethnic minorities). Probably you see, when we are referring to minorites or minority laws, we use in this context, and it has been officially called.
Regarding your other remark, it is completely fallacious of course we can refer to the Kingdom of Hungary as Hungary, since the kingdom is just the form of state like republic, people's republic, duchy, etc., as regardless of this we may call Britain as Britain, Germany as Germany and Poland and Poland up to the infinity of examples, and Hungary was created in 1000 A.D. as an independent state (you'd better do not render some superficial and erroneous propaganda that are coming recurrently from anti-Hungarian circles). As well, your summarization about Hungary's status pre-WW1 is erroneus, since Hungary and Austria were completely separate states forming monarchy of some joint institutions, in the latter having equal representation. The comparison to Scotland as well fails. Please analyze a little bit the subject before giving such statements.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Separate in name. As is Scotland separate in name from England. The Habsburg emperor commanded a unified army. Diplomacy was made on the level of the empire. Internal affairs also had cross currents. Shkrata (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, we can see from WWI that the empire operated as one unit, although troops were generally split because of language issues, logistics, etc. The idea that the Kingdom of Hungary was somehow independent before 1914 but not during WWI makes no sense to me. The difference was that, while the emperor held dictatorial powers before 1914, he was happy not to exercise them provided the Kingdom was peaceful and the money arrived. See Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867#Terms for his powers which we may summarise as "the emperor can do what he likes". Of course, 19th century Hungarians knew all this, which is why so many were opposed to the compromise. The reality is that while Hungary had been an independent state, it hadn't been one for hundreds of years and in this period it certainly wasn't. Is Scotland an independent state because it was one until 1707? Of course not. Nigej (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shkrata, your "summarization" neither annilihate nor disprove the facts I've said. No, Scotland's name was not in the name of the UK. The fact both countries had the same King again is nothing special, there are many famous personal unions where still the respective countries remain separate. Some joint institutions (inlcuding diplomacy) were above state levels, on monarchic level, finally those "cross-currents" really did not affect the status quo.
Nigej, the facts I presented are independent from i.e. how the "Empire" operated from WWI, of course they operated jointly, because per agreement this was one of the business of the few joint institutions, moreover they were allies. The Royal Hungarian Honvéd was anyway a separate unit as well because it was Hungary's sovereign. If it does not make "sense to you", sorry, the terms section you referred demonstrating the opposite what you say. Hungarians since centuries opposed anyone from Habsburg House, as it has been ended all the time with a freedom fight, this has been as well a traditional issue, but it did not change the separate "Regnum Independens" status, that has been never given up or agreed by Hungarians. As well, the King's tools on his country did not really deterred from anytime any king of Hungary during it's history, so it again cannot be used for the argument you try to demonstrate, as well it also not true that before 1914 "dictatorial" powers would be held. Hungary was not just nominally but de jure, etc. an independent state, we may just discuss about any kind of "independence" issue in an other level of abstraction; like primarily foreign influence through foreign houses who held the Hungarian crown. Finally again you try to make some comparisons with Scotland that really does not hold, Hungary's indepence has not any connection to Scotland's independence before or after 1707.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Election System part has inconstitency.[edit]

The table which provides data on the ratio of franchise and ratio of nationalities has one set of data and the text part is using different numbers, which doesnt make much sense. The numbers should be the same in that part or an explanation should be provided for the difference. The table has a source document while the text part has one source but based on the citation the numbers might not have come from there. My suggestion would be to use the data from the table, which would then make some of the comments in the text inaccurate. The other source I have no access to, but if there are different figures from another source than both should be mentioned rather than one that says some nationalities were underrepresented. For example even with the current text 10.4 to 10.7 with the Slovaks is not a statistically significant difference, and if we take a look at the table that provides data that they were actually overrepresented. Underrepresentation than comes into account mostly with the Romanian ethnic group. Also for Hungarians an overrepresentation of 56.2 to the 54.4 is not a huge difference but the text then uses 54.5 and 60.2 which would be a significant overrepresantion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.157.90.161 (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The topic has no sense regarding to Magyarization, because the suffrage right was not based on ethnicity, but on wealth and later suffrage was based on taxes. --Longsars (talk) 08:13, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories