Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary

Hungary NA‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles NA This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Hungary page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 91 days

Hi, there is an ongoing debate about the Hungarian Spectrum. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hungarian_Spectrum

If You are interested, please weigh in!

In the Puskás Akadémia FC article there is a section entitled "Trivia" that leans on political propaganda and makes claims without citing sources. It would behoove us to remove this section for the sake of neutrality, as the author is clearly displaying bias with his comments.

Hi, an user suddenly appears and started agressively (with personal insults) editing many similar contents, not willing to do any compromise, he force exclusively his POV, removing Hungarian historian sources, removing Hungarian historical contents.

Talk:First Vienna Award#"Non-violent"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Soviet_annexation_of_Transcarpathia#Czecoslovakia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Soviet_annexation_of_Transcarpathia#This_article_is_about_the_Soviet_annexation_of_Transcarpathia,_nothing_more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungarian_invasion_of_Carpatho-Ukraine#Czecoslovak_participation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hungarians_in_Ukraine#Borders OrionNimrod (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I literally went to WP:Third Opinion in order to find another editor to solve the dispute, and you ignored it and resumed editing the article before the 3O could reply. You also constantly ignore all the Talk page explanations I make in favor of your narrative that aims to paint me falsely as unwilling to compromise. I am now considering to escalate this towards the dispute resolution process. Azure94 (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Azure94 It is clear you did not ask 3rd opinion you editet the same aggressive edit war way many topics by your taste to force exclusively your POV (easy to see your edits are the last after many reverts), arbitrary remove Hungarian academic sources, blacklisting Hungarian historians (which say the same as other linked source) as own cenzorship. Arbitrary remove Hungarian history which is relate to the event because it does not fit your taste. You did not provide academic sources, even after seveal request, double standard by understanding international law, ignoring historical maps, sources, I started those talk pages to make compromise, but even you do not want to use compromise to name the Soviets as Soviets. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask for a third opinion, and I can prove it. At this point you're just constantly lying in order to smear me. Azure94 (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And you edited several topics by your taste before getting any answer... OrionNimrod (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're lying again. The Third Opinion was asked only regarding the Vienna Awards article, which I immediately stopped editing while waiting for the Third Opinion to resolve the dispute. Nobody was editing that article, until you abruptly stopped interacting with the 3O on the talk page and resumed editing the article before the 3O could respond to your last comment. Azure94 (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@OrionNimrod and @Azure94, both of you, let's please take a step back and relax and collect ourselves. This is getting out of hand. Please remember, we're here to write an encyclopedia, together, in a spirit of mutual cooperation and goodwill. There's no reason to pursue any argument here that doesn't further that. Reading over these discussions, I see a lot of what looks like fighting for the sake of fighting to me, and not a lot of attention paid to what exactly needs to be done to each of these articles to make them better. I think it's straying into WP:BATTLEGROUND territory and strikes me as the kind of behavior that could bring either of you unwanted attention. If you're trying to dispute a very particular section of an article, and the other user starts straying away from the topic, you have no particular need to follow them. Likewise, you don't need to counter every single point they make that you don't agree with; Wikipedia is not about winning debates, after all. If it's not directly relevant to the specific improvement you're trying to make to the article, just let it go. It's not going to ruin the world if someone says something wrong or mentions a dubious article or whatnot on a random talk page somewhere.

Now, with that said, what all exactly is under dispute here? I only know about the "nonviolent" issue because that was the subject of the 3O request, and of course I basically gave my stance on that here. I'm finding it challenging to extract other clear points of debate from those talk pages above. I can see there was something about maps in Soviet annexation of Transcarpathia, something about who was involved and on what side in Hungarian invasion of Carpatho-Ukraine, and something about when Transcarpathia became part of which country in Hungarians in Ukraine…I think. Am I on the right track there? Let's try to get all our ducks in a row regarding the points of dispute, without descending into more fighting—all we need to do right now is pinpoint what the questions are, not what the answers to them should be. If any of these issues are only relevant to one article, ultimately I think it should be worked out on the talk page of that article, but right now all I really understand is that there's been a lot of fighting and it stretches across a variety of Hungary-related articles, so this seems like a decent forum to hash out what's going on overall for starters. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 16:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet annexation of Transcarpathia - A lot of things happened here, but the crux is that OrionNimrod believes that this was a territorial transfer from Hungary to the USSR, when the original text of the article (which was translated from German Wikipedia by Afus199620 ) makes it clear that the transfer was more like Hungary-> Czechoslovakia-> USSR. In order to de-emphasize Czechoslovakia, OrionNimrod started heavily rewriting the article, starting by changing the small description from "1945–46 land transfer from Czechoslovakia" to "Soviet annexation of Transcarpathia in 1945". He also inserted four giant maps that took way too much space in the article in order to emphasize Hungary's claim to the territory. The word "Czechoslovakia" also disappeared from the last section (Conclusion). It was clear to me that these edits were made in bad faith by him. I reverted these changes to the original version by Afus199620 and expanded on the section about the Moscow treaty and the Paris Peace treaty, to make it clear that Transcarpathia was first handed back to Czechoslovakia before it was annexed by USSR. OrionNimrod started reverting all of this while engaging in circular arguments on the talk page.

Hungarian invasion of Carpatho-Ukraine - The article talks heavily about the actions of the Czechoslovak army, so I first fixed Oleg Svátek's infobox flag, which for strange reasons had the flag of Carpatho-Ukraine, when he was Czechoslovak. Then proceeded to add the remainder of the Czechoslovak military leaders to the infobox, to make it consistent with the text of the article (see also the Czech and Slovak wikipedia article, which also uses similar infoboxes). Unfortunately, OrionNimrod interjected by insisting that the Czechoslovak army couldn't be refereed to as Czechoslovak, after Germany occupied Prague. I've tried to reason with him by mentioning the documented existence of Czechoslovak brigades thorough WW2, and that just because Prague fell doesn't mean that the troops present in Carpatho-Ruthenia instantly vanished into thin air. I've added sources that showed how long it took for the Czechoslovak army to evacuate Carpatho-Romania, and how many Czechoslovak troops were still present, label or not, in defense of Carpatho-Ruthenia alongside the Carpatian Sich. OrionNimrod responded with endless circular arguments that went nowhere.

Hungarians in Ukraine - In here, OrionNimrod insist that the border separating Transcarpathia was first drawn in 1920 at Trianon. In reality, the border was drawn in provisional form at the end of 1918; in its present form in 1919 (which is also when Czechoslovak troops first entered Carpatho-Ukraine) and the Trianon treaty in 1920 only served to force Hungary to accept the earlier drawn borders. OrionNimrod refused this explanation and insists, despite all the documented proof, that it was only in 1920 that the border became real. This would come as news to the Carpatho-Ruthenian people in 1919 who could clearly see a physical border separating them from Hungary.

On these talk pages, OrionNimrod has many times talked in the language of Hungarian irredentism. He's without any prompt used inflammatory words like "Aurel Stromfeld liberated north Hungary from the Czech invaders" while emphasizing the "non-violence" of Horthy's Hungary and consistently made it clear that he considers Czechoslovak presence in "Upper Hungary" to be illegitimate and thus felt justified to remove any mention of them. As a result, I found it impossible to reach a compromise with his extremist views. His frequent dumping of irrelevant walls of texts to bludgeon the debate, made it clear to me that he's arguing in bad faith in order to impose his nationalist and irredentist agenda. Azure94 (talk) 16:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, do these seem like decent summaries of the points of dispute?

• What language should be used to describe Hungary's revisionist stance on Trianon when it was solely pressing its case in the diplomatic sphere? What about Germany and Italy's stance at the time?
• Was Transcarpathia transferred directly from Hungary to the USSR, or was it transferred from Hungary to Czechosolvakia, who then transferred it to the USSR?
• What was the status of the Czechoslavok army after Germany occupied Prague? Was it still the Czechoslavok army?
• When and how was the border between Transcarpathia and Hungary established?

Obviously we've already taken up the first point at some length. The other three seem like they could be easy to settle by referring to some good sources. @OrionNimrod, do you agree that these are the main points of dispute?

Also, from here on out, please, both of you, be respectful and refrain from disparaging the other editor's character or behavior. I'm going to consider ANI if either of you keep making personal attacks; it actively gets in the way of us coming to an agreement on these points. This may have been a deeply vexing interaction for both of you so far, but now is the time to put your grievances aside and start making a genuine effort to work with the other person. If you still feel too frustrated to do that right now, I think the article Magnolia dealbata could be expanded given the sources that are out there, and I bet that would relax anyone. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 17:47, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mesocarp, thanks for your feedback!

Talk:First Vienna Award#"Non-violent"

I leave the "nonviolent" term, I dont want use anymore, because all academic sources use the "peaceful revision" term. [1] I added that "peaceful" term, I kept the "support" word Germany and Italy as Azure modified, but Azure instantly changed and made edit war like in other articles. [2] He added "While some in the Hungarian government called for military action" however in the source just "While some called for military action" no government word, he keeps to add this extra word to falsify the original source, while he removes the "peaceful" word what is the key in all sourced academic source as I listed them, even contemporary New York Times 5][6] I would like remove the "government" and keep the "peaceful" word, every other thing is fine in the text. It is clear he wants to hide in any case that the Hungarian revision politic between 1920-38 aimed a peacful and non violent border revision.

Menatime I found more:

[3] "Hungary reluctantly accepted the new reality, but the next twenty years of Hungarian foreign and domestic policy largely aimed at a peaceful revision of the Trianon Treaty."

After the Anschluss, it was clear to many in the Hungarian Foreign Ministry and the government in general that the key to peacefully enlarging Hungary’s borders was to utilize the idea of national self-determination as the Germans had.

the long-awaited miracle has come to pass: Hungary’s territory has peacefully been enlarged. –Béla Imrédy, Prime Minister

After being shown the frontier around the city of Munkács, Procter noted that “Hungary’s policy of peaceful revision will surely continue,”

[4] "Hungary’s role in international politics and the question of peaceful revision were the main topics for discussion."

"Revision in a peaceful and strictly diplomatic way was considered to be the only solution in the immediate aftermath of the treaty"

"Revision by peaceful and strictly diplomatic means was considered to be the only solution by the Hungarian government "

"The basic tenets of his revisionist concept, corresponding to those which most (semi-) official circles also represented, comprised the program of reconciliation in internal political and economic affairs and their wise administration in order to “command the respect and sympathy of the civilized world,” and, on this basis, to realize the revision of the treaty through peaceful means only"

"A certain “legal mechanism”95 seemed to provide a viable foundation for a peaceful and diplomatic solution, and founded belief in the future adjustment of the frontiers."

[5] "Even Gömbös made a habit of emphasising that he aimed at ‘revision by peaceful methods’"

"László Bárdossy, Chargé d’Affaires of the Hungarian Legation in London, made a point of reiterating Hungary’s peaceful ambitions"

"The British interest in Hungarian affairs was only to intensify in 1938, shortly before the idea of a ‘peaceful revision’ became a reality."

[6] "the Peace Treaty of Trianon by the assertion of our just rights and solely by peaceful means."

"and to influence popular feeling in the victorious countries in favour of a peaceful revision of the Treaty"

1936 journal [7]: "The only possible solution of the questions is therefore that to be obtained by political means. The Hungarian opinion on this point has been repeatedly defined. According to that opinion cooperation with the Succession States must be made subject to the following conditions, which are the minimum demands and are of a "real political" character: — first, the conditions of subsistence of the Hungarian (Magyar) minorities numbering 3.5— 4 million souls must be really ensured; then, guarantees must be given to ensure political development and to provide that the present intolerable conditions shall be changed by peaceful means — either by enforcing the provisions of Article 19 of the Covenant of the League of Nations or by means of other effectual international agreements. "

"For many years Hungary has lost no opportunity of declaring that she does not want to attain redress for the injustices done to Hungary — and through it the solution of the Danube problem so important for the whole of Europe — by war but by peaceful means."

"The purely Hungarian frontier territories must be restored to Hungary by way of a peaceful revision reached through negotiations conducted without mental reservations on either side."

[8] "Hungarian views on territorial revision seemed united to outsiders. In practice the closest that they came to consensus was in stating that the frontier changes had to be peaceful, as the military forces of Hungary’s neighbors were an order of magnitude stronger than Hungary’s."

"Hungarian views on territorial revision seemed united to outsiders. In practice the closest that they came to consensus was in stating that the frontier changes had to be peaceful, as the military forces of Hungary’s neighbors were an order of magnitude stronger than Hungary’s."

The situation prompted Hungary to press for Great-Power support for its territorial objectives, where possible seeking peaceful, diplomatic means of attaining them, although this was only successful for the predominantly Hungarian-inhabited parts of Czechoslovakia, recovered in the autumn of 1938.

[9]"Integral revision was taken off the agenda of the Hungarian government as a plan without any real chance to be realised. Peaceful revision became a slogan from 1928."

"They were afraid that their attack on Czechoslovakia would turn the Little Entente as well as England and France against them, and a military conflict like that could end only with the defeat of Hungary. They wanted to satisfy their territorial demands in a peaceful way. Hungarian politicians counted on a long preparatory period, and they were not prepared for a military action against Czechoslovakia"

[10]The Hungarian foreign office, however, continually emphasized that Hungary sought only peaceful revision.

[11] Then it was a reaction of Hungary’s demand of the peaceful return to her historic borders

A yet more important outcome was that Hungary had shown her willingness to revise her frontiers by peaceful means

I have already stated that my aim was to achieve the revision of the Treaty of Trianon by peaceful means.

We desired revision, yes, but revision by peaceful means.

Hungary had, of course, revisionist claims on Czechoslovakia, I added, but it was our wish and intention to press those claims by peaceful means.

Csáky stressed the fact that Hungary had brought about the revision of the Treaty of Trianon “without shedding blood and in a peaceful way” and that she was filled with the desire “to maintain good relations with all her neighbours”.

Ever since the will of the nation put me at the country’s helm, the most important aim of Hungarian foreign policy has been, through peaceful revision, to repair

I asked several question to him regarding his edit, he usually unwilling to answer. I do not agree that Azure think that he want to be exclusively to the boss of articles and what he adds/deletes everything in the article is OK, but he arrogantly ignores other editors, Wiki is not that, I asked several times to stop personal harrasments, but still continue for example naming me "troll, bizarre, schizophrenic.." [12][13][14] Quoting him I just think it's bizarre that of the 5 citations used, all of them use "peaceful revision" but he removed only that key word. Which shows his intention, to modify academic sources to fit his taste.

Azure also made a long debate regarding this source [15] which also use the "peaceful" word, I used only that reason. You can read it, not so long, I asked to show me what is wrong there in the text, of course he did not answer. He started to focus of the person of the historian to make a blacklist. He made a long political debate with this (which is off topic). I deliberately used many kind of sources, to present many kind of historian opinions. There are many historians in every country with different political views, which is not surprising, quite normal, but in our case both use the same term: "peaceful revision", so this thing more stronger validate the subject if historians by different political views write the same. Almost all Hungarian historians are working in a Hungarian government institute, because Azure does not like the current Hungarian government (I bet he does not like any other based his behavior), he as a Wiki censor boss want to delete reliable academic Hungarian historian sources which made during the period of Orban (Orban governed Hungary total 17 years), he are focusing to blacklist arbitrary this institue with a lot of historians [16] however the linked historian made an interview for the Magyar Nemzet journal (in Hungary among top, like New York Times, Washington Post...) not that institute publication, so Azure blacklisted him based on his workplace. Anyway that Hungarian institute is reliable academic source, but Azure wants to allow which Hungarians historians can publish regarding Hungarian history based on his personal political POV because according to him "watchdog NGO" critized that institute... :). However he basically say historian work is allowed to use from Hungarian Spectrum because this is anti-Orban and critize Orban, so it is very okay. However both historians use the same term: "peaceful revision", but he still argues against the Hungarian academic source, I cannot accept that every word from 100 Hungarian historians can be wrong if they are Hungarians and work in Hungarian institutes, what a nonsense? It is the same: in USA Repulicans critize everything what Democrats do and inverse Democrats critize everything Repulicans do. In UK same and in every country. There are no Wiki rules about that only historian works under Repulican government or only historian works under Democrat government are allowed to use. I think not Azure the Wiki boss who can decide who are the bad or good guy and which Hungarian academic source is allowed to use for Hungarian history. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I want to do right now is settle this question: do you agree that these are the four major points of dispute?

• What language should be used to describe Hungary's revisionist stance on Trianon when it was solely pressing its case in the diplomatic sphere? What about Germany and Italy's stance at the time?
• Was Transcarpathia transferred directly from Hungary to the USSR, or was it transferred from Hungary to Czechosolvakia, who then transferred it to the USSR?
• What was the status of the Czechoslavok army after Germany occupied Prague? Was it still the Czechoslavok army?
• When and how was the border between Transcarpathia and Hungary established?

Let's get that settled before we move on to anything else. Also, I'm really serious about the personal attacks. They need to stop. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 18:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mesocarp! Agree, Wiki should be a place for good collaboration in a cultured way, even if we had different opinions, or present more academic opinions, but we need use academic sources not by personal researches. WP:ORIGINAL I would like to focus only one article first because of the time limit and there are the same issues in the other articles. First Vienna Award I have no problem that Azure used the word "Germany and Italy supported Hungary" and remove the "nonviolence" word, I am willing to make compromise. Also I have no issue that he extended "the weak military things". I sourced at least 25+ sources (and there are more) which all use the same language "peaceful revision/way/means" I think it is a key word as we can see on the sources, I do not agree to change this. Also I do not agree that Azure want to put the "Hungarian government" word regarding "military action" which is not in the sourced content. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know what you mean by "time limit"? That aside, it sounds as if you feel like there is one other point beyond the "nonviolence"/"peaceful revision" question around First Vienna Award, namely:

• Did some figures in the Hungarian government advocate for military action while the government was pressing for Trianon revision diplomatically?

Is that right? I'm basing that on this diff.

As a side note, regarding sources generally, there is a reliable sources noticeboard where you can ask other editors about the reliability of a source. People also sometimes try to settle those kinds of questions on the pages of Wikiprojects like this one. It's also a reasonable topic for an RfC. Barring all of that, it does just come down to what people think about the source locally.

For Magyar Nemzet, I would be very cautious about citing them on articles like the ones we've been talking about; if I was going to cite them, I would state the source explicitly (i.e. "Magyar Nemzet claimed that…"). According to that article they openly proclaim a conservative and pro-Orban stance, which is going to color their take on topics like Trianon, especially in terms of people they interview or "explainer" articles or opinion columns or anything like that. As for Hungarian Spectrum, it sounds like the writers on it were academics in the humanities, so I think it would probably be reasonable to cite them on these articles, but I would also probably name the source (i.e. "Kim Lane Scheppele wrote on Hungarian Spectrum that…"). Since it was a blog, there was presumably no peer review, and it sounds like it was known for taking an anti-Orban stance which also might color its take. I would prefer academic journals or books published by university presses or the like to either of these sources when it comes to the kinds of topics we've been considering.

Also, as another source-related side note, you don't need to cite tens of sources to make a single point. One or two strong sources is usually good enough—definitely enough to sway me in most cases, if I think they're good sources. If you give a giant list of them like that it can come off as a bit of a WP:WALLOFTEXT.

I'm just noting these things on the side, though—I don't want to lose focus on figuring out what all the questions under dispute are.🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 19:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mesocarp, I mean I would like deal only one issue at the same time as I have no time to talk about everything once, also this could limit the text and focus to only one issue at the same time, and deal with the other issues step by step later. Finally I think I showed 25+ sources, of course we do not need source all of them: "peaceful revision" politic of that time, also it was no any military conflict in that period which is about the background story.

"Did some figures in the Hungarian government advocate for military action while the government was pressing for Trianon revision diplomatically?" I do not know every details, I focused the general term which is fit to the lead section to present briefly the main thing. Just I suggest to use exactly what is in the source, and not to invent there extra personal opinions WP:ORIGINAL. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want to deal with them one-at-a-time too, I just want to get a complete list of questions we can answer so that we can then go through each one and then say we're finished. Your cross-article debate with Azure94 raised a variety of points, and I think it will be easiest to settle the debate as a whole if we distill it down to a set of neat questions like this before we start. That clearly demarcates the boundaries of the debate.

On the "advocate for military action" question, I still think it's important to answer it, because, if the answer is "yes," and the lead points it out but the body of the article doesn't, that suggests that the body needs to be changed moreso than the lead. It might be a minor-enough detail that we don't need to include it in the lead, but it should definitely appear in the article somewhere in that case. We have to resolve the question itself before we can get to that point, though.

So, here's what we have so far:

• What language should be used to describe Hungary's revisionist stance on Trianon when it was solely pressing its case in the diplomatic sphere? What about Germany and Italy's stance at the time?
• Did some figures in the Hungarian government advocate for military action while the government was pressing for Trianon revision diplomatically?
• Was Transcarpathia transferred directly from Hungary to the USSR, or was it transferred from Hungary to Czechosolvakia, who then transferred it to the USSR?
• What was the status of the Czechoslavok army after Germany occupied Prague? Was it still the Czechoslavok army?
• When and how was the border between Transcarpathia and Hungary established?

Are there any other points you want to resolve aside from these, or are there points here you're not worried about contesting? Again, we don't need to try to answer any of these yet or make any decisions about what to do with the articles at this time, I'm just trying to make sure we touch on every significant point of dispute that's come up between you and Azure94. Then we can take it from the top and settle each one-by-one. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 20:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mesocarp,

More or less there are the issues as you listed, but we can handle them separately, not everything is related each other, but please first I would like to focus only one thing, and then step by step I would like to talk about the other things. Because it would be a lot of mess and wall of text. I would like to avoid it. I would like first clarify the "peaceful revision" politic of Hungary prior the First Vienna Award as background.

1.

"What language should be used to describe Hungary's revisionist stance"

I sourced at least 25+ sources (and there are more) which all use the same language (even the historians has different political view, which validates more the term): "sought peaceful revision, peaceful way, peaceful means". Germany and Italy "supported" Hungary as Azure wrote in the lead, I do not want to add here the "nonviolent" word for Nazy Germany anymore as Azure removed, so this words is fine. I also have no problem that Azure added this to the lead from the source "In the interwar period, Hungary was weaker economically and militarily than the neighbours against which it had territorial claims", so I abandon the original issue the "nonviolance" word. As you suggested, I founded many academic sources, I would like to use exactly that language which are claimed in all of them universally, this is also the Wikipedia rule to follow the academic sources, so I do not understand why the language of those is still not good for Azure, what should I do more? I already accepted many changes and edits by him, unfortunately I see the willing to find compromise is one sided, as he force anyway his personal PoV even overwriting the language of academic sources, that is why I started the "agressive edit war topic" in the talk page so it is good if 3rd opinion is involved.

2.

"Hungarian government advocate for military action"

Well, that info was suggested only by Azure as WP:ORIGINAL a Wiki rule about this, this info is not in the academic source. I am Hungarian, I think he is Slovak, and as you can see his campaing to depict Hungary as exclusively an aggressor, he deliberately remove the key word "peaceful revision" which presented 25+ academic sources (I could find more) and he deliberately add that the "Hungarian government called for military action" which word is not in the original Polish source [17]:"While some called for military action, Hungarian revisionism mainly sought to reclaim the lost territories through peaceful means. In  the interwar period, Hungary was weaker economically and militarily than the neighbours against which it had territorial claims. For this reason, the Hungarian leadership focused on seeking support for the idea of a revision of the Treaty of Trianon among revisionist powers" So the original text clearly say that the official Hungarian politic wanted a peaceful revision, of course in every country there are angry people, I do not know who called military action, the text does not say, but this not change the fact that the official politic wanted the peaceful way. Anyway this is only 1 source and I do not find related thing in the other sources, also I do not understand why important to mention not defined "some" which had no effect, we can see Azure deliberately emphasized this "some" with additional invented info and in the other side he removed the "peacful" word which was the "main" official way.

The Hungarian prime ministers (as I quoted many) always emphasized the "peaceful revision", the governor of the country Miklós Horthy, he was also always the side of the peaceful revision.

This book was written by an American historian published in USA, many details about that era and if you search "peaceful" term you will find many related content in the book: [18][19] I think this book is itself a good evidence for the issue:

"Hungary’s demand of the peaceful return to her historic borders. Hungary lost two thirds of her territory at the end of the first world war; one out of every three Magyars became “ethnic minorities” in their own land of birth. "

"A yet more important outcome was that Hungary had shown her willingness to revise her frontiers by peaceful means."

Hitler wanted Hungary to attack Czechoslovakia from the south and wanted to provide weapons, but Hungary clearly refused the military action:

"He was fully resolved on war, and he tried to persuade me to pledge the Hungarians to march into Slovakia from the south as the Germans entered Czechoslovakia. He gave me to understand that as a reward we should be allowed to keep the territory we had invaded. This project was put in the form of a request, and I replied with all courtesy but with great firmness that there could be no possibility of Hungarian participation. Hungary had, of course, revisionist claims on Czechoslovakia, I added, but it was our wish and intention to press those claims by peaceful means. I pointed out that, in any case, our restricted forces were not strong enough to overrun the fortifications that had been erected along our borders. “We’ll provide you with the arms,” Hitler interrupted. But I adhered to my refusal and even warned him against the risk of a major war, as, in my opinion, the chances were that neither England nor France, nor even Soviet Russia, would passively watch a German entry into Czechoslovakia."

István Csáky, Minister of Foreign Affairs (1938-1941):

In the declaration which Csáky read on behalf of the Hungarian Government, this very idea was brought to the fore: “Germany, Italy and Japan have entered into an alliance to restrict the spread of war and to bring to the world as speedily as possible a lasting and just peace.” Csáky stressed the fact that Hungary had brought about the revision of the Treaty of Trianon “without shedding blood and in a peaceful way” and that she was filled with the desire “to maintain good relations with all her neighbours”

Horthy’s Proclamation in 1944: “Ever since the will of the nation put me at the country’s helm, the most important aim of Hungarian foreign policy has been, through peaceful revision, to repair, at least partly, the injustices of the Peace Treaty of Trianon. Our hopes in the League of Nations in this regard remained unfulfilled.” OrionNimrod (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points:

It's bizarre to take István Csáky's words about how "Hungary had brought about the revision of the Treaty of Trianon “without shedding blood and in a peaceful way” seriously, when the wiki article already has an entire well sourced section talking about all the violent acts committed against Czechoslovakia by both the Hungarian army and Hungarian paramilitary forces. István Csáky was engaging in shameless propaganda when he falsely painted the revision as "bloodless". We should be aware of the fact that Horthy's Hungary, being an authoritarian and irredentist regime, was eager to lie about its past actions.

I would really appreciate if OrionNimrod would stop making theories about my nationality. His tendency to imagine his internet "enemies" to be secretly Slovakians is just another example of him holding deep seated grudges and prejudices.

The historian interviewed by Magyar Nemzet has a name. His name is Sándor Szakály, and he's the director of Orban's propaganda and historical revisionism VERITAS institute. For some reason, OrionNimrod refuses to use his name, always only addressing him as "historian". I find this to be deceitful and dishonest.

One of the citations OrionNimrod inserted into the Vienna Awards article was a work written by the Hungarian historian Eva Balogh. The same historian who also mantained the Hungarian Spectrum blog. For some reasons, OrionNimrod is fine when Balogh talks about the Vienna award. But when she talks about VERITAS being a den of historical revisionism, he flip-flops and starts accusing Balogh of being "paid by George Soros" and thus unreliable. I find this double standard and cherry picking really galling. And so are OrionNimrod's false accusations me of "blacklisting historians" while he's simultaneously viciously smearing Balogh. Azure94 (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mesocarp, @OrionNimrod

I instated a version that can serve as a compromise at least until the end of this debate. OrionNimrod could cite many sources to prove that the policy of Hungary is viewed as peaceful by most of the author opinions. I think there's no problem with that word, Azure94 also agreed to its use here.

But I think we should still wait for a decision about the interpretation of the first words of Sadecki in the relevant part of his study. I have been convinced by OrionNimrod's arguments that its not clear who the author means by "some". Actually it could be any politician, not just a government official who can call for violent action. Following the peace treaties near Paris there was a legitimate indignation among the populace of the losing countries, we all know that radical movements gained a lot more space than before. Fortunately in interwar Hungary, which was a democratic constitutional monarchy, no party like this had the chance to form a government. The most popular approach to the matter was the peaceful way, as the Hungarians who had tragic memories didn't want another big war. I think we should try to figure out an answer to the question of who Sadecki meant by that. I think it's not obvious that he meant the government officials, because as I said the governments were careful not to spark any conflicts with the neighbours, but there surely were plenty smaller voices who did try to provoke that. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Azure94, I provided 25+ sources which clearly name the Hungarian politic as "peaceful revision" before the way of the First Vienna Award which is the short background story in the lead of the article. I see you cherry pick things to disqualify sources in order to overwrite the language of academic sources, however those sources are more than enough, you cannot disqualify all of them. In Wiki we should use academic history sources and that languages, this is not a personal blog. Btw István Csáky became minister from 10 December 1938 after the First Vienna Award, the topic is not about him, the topic is the period before the First Vienna Award. During the negotiations, individual not governmental deeds (many full Hungarian populated settlements became part of Czechoslovakia, many Hungarians were not happy with this) future minor border conflict does not change the fact that the mainstream Hungarian politic used the peaceful revision during the earlier 18 years (1920-38), which is clearly the background of the article. The future cannot erase which happened in the previous past. Indeed Horthy's Hungary was irredentist that is why they wanted revision and itself the article the First Vienna Awards which is about the Hungarian territorial claim and revisionism but by peaceful means as all the sources say, revisionism means to revision of the Treaty of Trianon, so the irredentism is not a surprise. But please do not forget to mention the reasons: the Hungarian irredentism created by the Czech irredentism, because the Czechs occupied (it was also many bloodshed and military actions) huge full Hungarian populated regions 18 years earlier which regions belonged 1000 years long to Hungary and after the local Hungarians were treated badly as second class citizens. So they were not happy, and they did not say thanks for that deed. This unsatisfaction of Hungary caused the revisionist politic as in all historical sources described. We should use neutral language in articles following the academic sources not by emotions.

It is not a secret I am Hungarian that is why I focusing Hungarian topics, your nationality is not the topic, it cannot be a personal insult like naming troll or schizophrenic somebody, so I apology you if you think it was an insult (for me it would be not insult if somebody think me Slovak, or Hungarian or any), however we @Mesocarp could understand better the situtation and the strong emotions, the reason of these strong emotions raised this question, because the issue between us is only and many Czechoslovak-Hungarian history topics and not the life of the elephants, and you exclusively edited topics earlier by pro-Slovak stance, removing Hungarian things, examples: [20][21][22][23][24]

However I think it is boring the continous off topics, I showed USA example about the constant fight between Democratcs and Republicans, it is the same in Hungary, it is also well known that Orban critize Soros all the time and Soros critize Orban a lot of time, I did not know before this Hungarian Spectrum, the Wiki article says it financed by Soros, I got that info from there and I quoted that to understand why they critize each other... but this is very cool, I am very happy to use Balogh, that is why I think my sources are very good because both historians with different political views say the same: "peaceful revision". Just it is strange for me that Azure like the source from the Spectrum because it is anti-Orban, however I do not understand why he does not like the "peaceful revision" term which is even the title of that Spectrum source that he likes. And I have no problem with that source, even I collected myself, this source is not a debate us, so it is irrevelant to repeat always which thing is not a debate. Why do you make an extra debate where is no debate? Also I really uninterested in today's politic mess, I am editing old history contents.

I think we do not need to spend more time with this one thing, academic sources are all provided, I think those sources are more than enough. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, as far as the "What language should be used to describe Hungary's revisionist stance" question goes, I've come to agree that OrionNimrod has made a good case in favor of "peaceful"/"peaceful revision". We have that precise phrasing from some strong sources at this point, I would say especially considering Szélinger and Balogh. Although I still think I personally would favor "purely diplomatic" just for the sake of precision, I wouldn't argue with anyone who wanted to say "peaceful"/"peaceful revision" just on the strength of those sources. So, since it sounds like Gyalu22 agrees as well, I think we can tentatively say that it's kosher phrasing for these articles, at least for Hungary.

One thing I think we should note, though—the government didn't stay peaceful forever, i.e. there is a cutoff point past which it no longer makes sense to describe their stance as "peaceful." As OrionNimrod quoted on the First Vienna Award talk page, Szèlinger has that point at 1935: "…until 1935 a peaceful revision was [Hungary's] conception with Italy's diplomatic support" (p. 235), and then a bit later, "…the Italo-Ethiopian conflict had a great impact on the Hungarian foreign policy, and as a direct consequence Hungary began to look to Germany as her primary ally, giving up the possibility of a peaceful revision" (p. 236). What does everyone think about making 1935 the cutoff point for "peaceful" on that basis? 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 03:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mesocarp, just a side not: if we see the reference list of the First Vienna Award article, almost exclusively Slovak authors presented, I do not see at all any Hungarian authors (except what we added recently to the lead), so it is not fair to totally ignore the Hungarian side in a Hungarian-Slovak story. An article should be balanced not biased.

Sorry for the wall of text, but there are more evidences, this time I used USA University sources and USA University + Hungarian Academy of Science (the most important and prestigious learned society of Hungary) sources.

We can see all historical sources describe many kind of details, but universally all of them use the "peaceful revision" term, but the another key word together: "Hungary sought mainly through peaceful means", as this was the main politic, willing to seek the peaceful way and not by war. It would be not accurate if we keep silent about this main policy in the lead which claimed in all sources. As I quoted that in 1938 Hungary refused the military participation against Czechoslovakia and Hitler was not happy, which also shows the peaceful way was the main target in the Hungarian politic. And it is important that we do not talk about WW2 and the future events, we talking about background events between 1920-38 before the First Vienna Award. I think we can provide more details about the situation in the below chapters.

Another contemporary New Your Times: Explain Hungary's Aims.; Consul General, on Radio, Says She Seeks a Peaceful Revision.

Since 1920s Italy was the supporter of Hungary in the revision case (and not Germany, just later), but in 1935 Italy became an agressor state in Africa the authors emphasize the behavior of Italy endangered the Hungarian effort and target for the peaceful way. However as we can see there are many academic sources and only 1 said this whitout providing much details.

In the same Polish source: [25] This also confirms the peaceful way: "Hungary responded to the Treaty of Trianon by developing various concepts to reclaim the lost territories, but also with efforts to build good relations with neighbours and develop policies towards the Hungarian minorities in other countries."

I think this is also important to mention that the primarly target was to get back the Hungarian populated areas, as we can see the result of the First Vienna Award, Hungary got back mostly Hungarian majority areas not the Slovak majority areas.

"The country’s leaders outlined various scenarios to that end, most of which envisaged taking back the territories where ethnic Hungarians were the majority."

I found a very good reliable academic source, it is a very long book with many details, almost day by day events even regarding in Transcarpathia, so it helps to answer also the future issues, but I focus now to the "peaceful way" politic.

By many authors of the Hungarian Academy of Science + USA authors, and published in New York by Columbia University, Atlantic Research and Publications, Library of Congress: [26]

"In practice the closest that they came to consensus was in stating that the frontier changes had to be peaceful, as the military forces of Hungary’s neighbors were an order of magnitude stronger than Hungary’s."

"The situation prompted Hungary to press for Great-Power support for its territorial objectives, where possible seeking peaceful, diplomatic means of attaining them, although this was only successful for the predominantly Hungarian-inhabited parts of Czechoslovakia, recovered in the autumn of 1938"

In 1938:

"The Hungarians in many Hungarian-inhabited areas held demonstrations after Munich, in the early days of October, calling for annexation to Hungary. On October 7, Hungarian representatives and senators formed a Hungarian National Council aimed at ensuring that the return to Hungary took place peacefully, without disorderliness."

Hungarian government in 1938 straight before the First Vienna Award refused in the participation in Hitler military plan, this is confirms the aim to the peaceful revision:

"At the Kiel talks in August 1938, Hitler offered Hungary the whole of Slovakia if it would act as an initiator of the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. This was rejected by Governor Miklós Horthy on the advice of Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs Kálmán Kánya and the Hungarian chief of staff"

We can read that the government aimed mostly the revision of the Hungarian majority areas:

"The version of revision most stridently advocated (by social organizations) was to restore the integrity of pre-1918 “historical” Hungary, but to diplomatic minds, the idea of revision on ethnic grounds seemed the most attainable"

"Hungary’s insistence on “integral revision” had to be abandoned (for Slovakia and then Transcarpathia) in favor of the ethnic principle"

USA historian, University of California [27]

"After the Anschluss, it was clear to many in the Hungarian Foreign Ministry and the government in general that the key to peacefully enlarging Hungary’s borders was to utilize the idea of national self-determination as the Germans had"

Contemporary British politican after the First Vienna Award:

"A British M.P., Major Henry Procter, toured the returned areas in January 1939. After being shown the frontier around the city of Munkács, Procter noted that “Hungary’s policy of peaceful revision will surely continue,” a policy he believed was necessary given the status of the “absolutely absurd frontier, which was drawn without any idea of local conditions."

Another USA historian, University of California [28][29]

"Hungary, financially dependent on other countries and hoping to win foreign support for a peaceful revision of borders, was in no position to flout international expectations."

The American historian emphasize that the peaceful revision of borders was the politic of Horthy (the governor of Hungary):

"Horthy had always hoped Britain could broker a peaceful revision of borders"

California State University [30]

" In 1936 the Hungarian parties merged to form the United Hungarian Party, which lead the Magyar minority toward peaceful border revision in 1938."

"The Danubian Review (1933-1944) was an English-language Hungarian periodical that argued for the peaceful revision of the Treaty of Trianon (1920)"

Institute of European Network Remembrance and Solidarity in Warsaw [31]

Minister (1938-39) and Prime minister (1939-1941) Pál Teleki was also an advocate of armed neutrality and a peaceful revision of borders, later even he commited a suicide when Hungary was involved in the war by German pressure in 1941, because the peace was his main target, this is also a good evidence that he killed himself to keep his peaceful ideology, but this was 2 years after the Firt Vienna Award and we are talking about the background period before the Vienna Award not about the future.

"An advocate of armed neutrality and a peaceful revision of borders, Prime Minister Pál Teleki had doubts concerning Germany’s final victory and felt that a world-wide, anti German coalition could bring Germany to its knees."

Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences:[32]

Again, no Hungarian military action planned in 1938:

"The Hungarian government, fearing a western intervention, rejected Hitler’s demands"

They were afraid that their attack on Czechoslovakia would turn the Little Entente as well as England and France against them, and a military conflict like that could end only with the defeat of Hungary. They wanted to satisfy their territorial demands in a peaceful way. Hungarian politicians counted on a long preparatory period, and they were not prepared for a military action against Czechoslovakia"

In 1938 Germans blamed Hungarians that they are pacifist because Hungarians did not want a new war:

"Representatives of the Sudeten Germans contacted János Esterházy and called the Hungarians to join their movement. They said it could bring about the revision of the Trianon Treaty. Esterházy rejected cooperation and said: “The Hungarian Party does not join the struggle of the Sudeten Germans, which can initiate a new world war" "In this way, we would be the cause of the outbreak of the war. We do not want it by any means. We do not want to enforce the revision of the Trianon Treaty with a war.” Esterházy also expressed, on behalf of his party, that the Hungarians imagine revision in a peaceful and democratic way. The Sudeten Germans responded that “You are a pacifist, Mr Esterházy! Through your pacifist attempts you will never achieve the revision wanted by the Hungarian minority”

From University of Debrecen:[33]

"Revision in a peaceful and strictly diplomatic way was considered to be the only solution"

The successive Hungarian governments of the interwar period considered the program of revision a vital national concern and worked on it, first strictly with peaceful and diplomatic means."

About Prime minister István Bethlen:

"Bethlen continued to advocate a very careful revisionist program. He did not give up his cautious policy of “wait and see” and the belief that

revision would be possible to achieve only with international support and strictly by peaceful means. "

Hungarian university of Pecs and Polish university publisher [34]

"Poland was focusing on the problem of the rebirth of the divided state and the uncertainty regarding its borders while Hungary had to struggle with the peaceful revision of the lost territories." OrionNimrod (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the "some from the government called for military action" part? Gyalu22 (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gyalu22, above I already explained with my comment starting with this:

2.

"Hungarian government advocate for military action"

What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to ask Mesocarp, but I also think it doesn't have to refer to the government if no evidence suggests it. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mesocarp Szèlinger has that point at 1935: "…until 1935 a peaceful revision was [Hungary's] conception with Italy's diplomatic support" (p. 235), and then a bit later, "…the Italo-Ethiopian conflict had a great impact on the Hungarian foreign policy, and as a direct consequence Hungary began to look to Germany as her primary ally, giving up the possibility of a peaceful revision" (p. 236). What does everyone think about making 1935 the cutoff point for "peaceful" on that basis?

I think that is a good point. Sadecki on page 10 likewise points out that Hungary did everything to avoid a military conflict as long as it knew it was weaker than its neighbors. After the Munich agreement, Czechoslovakia no longer had the military strength to resist an armed invasion, allowing Hungary to press its claims. Szèlinger's account of Hungary after 1935 feeling increasingly secure enough to use non-peaceful means corroborates with the documented evidence of border skirmishes and violence that happened immediately before the Vienna agreement was signed. Azure94 (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyalu22 To be frank, from the context it is obvious that when Sadecki says "While some called for military action" he means "some in the government". The entire sections where this sentence appears talks only about the government and how it made revisionism its core ideology and objective. I've added the relevant section to the quote box, bolded parts are by me. Azure94 (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Azure94, @Mesocarp, @Gyalu22, Munich agreement was in 1938 not in 1935. Because Italy and Germany started to became agressive that things threatened the peaceful revision of Hungarian politic, so it is fine for me that Azure removed the "nonviolence" word from Germany and Italy, however Hungary in 1938 clearly refused the military action against Czechoslovakia against the pressure of Hitler. I already accepted many things by Azure, I searched vast amount of academic sources as requested, but Azure just still repeats the same things as in the beginning, it seems Azure in all cost want to force his own POV against many many academic history sources to overwrite and supervise their language. Azure clearly wants to push his POV to overwrite not only the language of the reliable academic sources, but the Wiki rules also: WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT + WP:ORIGINAL + WP:RELIABLE In Wikipedia the word of the academic sources are the important not the presonal opinion of users. Fact, Hungary did not make any military action before the negotiations of the First Vienna Award, those minor border conflicts during the negotiations were not made by government, also I do not see them in those sources what I found. Anyway what happened in 1938 in the future, it did not change the past, it cannot erase the existence of the peaceful revisionist politic of the previous 18 years (1920-38), and this is the background story before the First Vienna Awards. However it is clear that Azure in any cost want to remove this information from the background story of the article. In the original Polish source "While some called for military action" is a different section, Azure deliberately washes this with the previous one in his quote. Also we are not here in the Wiki to put extra words in the mouth of the historians what they did not write. We do not need ignore the another 30 sources which does not mention those things, however the other sources are very reliable like the Hungarian Academy of Science with USA Universities. The most strange behavior, that Azure clearly likes the Polish sources because he wants to use this but with an overwritten language for his personal POV, however exactly the same source uses in the next sentence clearly the "peaceful" term what he wants to remove in all cost: "Hungarian revisionism mainly sought to reclaim the lost territories through peaceful means". This openly double standard behavior show us his real intentions: he wants to remove in all cost the existence the peaceful politic of Hungary before the First Vienna Award against Wiki rules, against contemporary sources, against modern academic historian sources from many countries.

I listed 30+ sources, many USA historians also. I think the contemporary British politican knows the situation better than Azure:

USA historian, University of California [30] Contemporary British politican even after the First Vienna Award:

"A British M.P., Major Henry Procter, toured the returned areas in January 1939. After being shown the frontier around the city of Munkács, Procter noted that “Hungary’s policy of peaceful revision will surely continue,” a policy he believed was necessary given the status of the “absolutely absurd frontier, which was drawn without any idea of local conditions."

OrionNimrod (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have already reached agreement on how we should phrase at the peaceful word. [35] Me, OrionNimrod and Mesocarp agree to the current version and you also complied to it before it was written. The only question now is how the government part should be written, as the current version wasn't agreed to by all of us. (OrionNimrod presented some good arguments.) We need Mesocarp's opinion before we decide in this too. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to quickly note, I'm preparing a proper reply but haven't had time to finish it tonight. I've been busy in "real life" :P and there's a fair amount to go through where the new sources are concerned. Hopefully I should have something by next evening (EST). 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 05:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyalu22 I only complied to the version that contained both the peaceful word and the government part together. To be precise, this is the version you wrote that I complied with: Though some from the government called for military action, Hungarian revisionism primarily aimed to restore the historical boundaries peacefully. In the interwar period, Hungary was weaker economically and militarily than the neighbours against which it had territorial claims. I did not comply to only half of it. If you're now going to rewrite the paragraph you posted on your talk page, then you should first ask me about my opinion before you claim I comply with it. Azure94 (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Azure94, I see you state that you have no problem with the "peaceful" word if the "government" word is there in the other part of the sentence which is actually NOT in the academic text just you added in the mouth of the historian, but the "peaceful" word presented in ALL academic sources however you wanted to remove it. I think this double standard shows us that you are not interested to solve the issue, the initialy debate was the "nonviolance" word which is no issue anymore, since we have reliable academic sources it should be no issue anymore, just follow them. Why do you make useless unnecessary debate? The academic sources are matter not the personal POV in Wiki.

@Mesocarp, I think it worth no more time to deal with one sentence in the lead, just we need follow exactly the language of the reliable academic sources not a personal taste of an user. Nobody know who called military action... sources does not say it, academic sources all emphazise the peaceful revision politic of Hungary and the peaceful revision politic of the government leaders, prime ministers, foreign affair ministers, governor... Wiki is not about fictions. The initial debate was only the "nonviolence" word, you suggested to find reliable academic sources to solve the problem, I did, I abandoned the "nonviolence" word, this is no issue anymore. I was happy to find academic sources so I suggested to use their language, finally we have plenty of reliable academic sources which means it should be no issue or debate anymore, just follow them.

I suggest this lead sentence as we can see this in all academic sources (I think other deep details can be add below on the detailed chapters), Azure added the interwar period text, and removed the nonviolence word before Germany, I accept it. I move first the Hungarian military thing, it suggests also that Hungary due to his weak military only the peaceful way was possible.

"In the interwar period, Hungary was weaker economically and militarily than the neighbours against which it had territorial claims. Hungary sought to reclaim the lost territories through peaceful way to restore its historical borders. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had supported the territorial claims of the Kingdom of Hungary, and revision of the 1920 Treaty of Trianon." OrionNimrod (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is not about strategic concessions that "if you accept this idea of mine, I accept that idea of yours". We need to aim on reaching an agreement on what is true and not on validating our own interests. So far our discussion has decided that the phrasing at the "peaceful part" is correct. And even if you start to disagree, it's 3 for and 1 against, plus the many sources not having a problem with calling the whole interwar policy of Hungary peaceful remain on their place. At the "government part" my proposed version failed to get full acceptance, so we have to find which version is the best then. Regardless your argument will be found right or not I will be happy to see a result at the end this debate. Gyalu22 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Azure94, OrionNimrod, Mesocarp, Gyalu22,

I think we can keep the “peaceful revision” word, since this was the politic of the Kingdom of Hungary in that time, and that's how it's referred to in today's academic sources, and in the newspapers of the time. CriticKende (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gyalu22 Fwiw, I was complying with a paragraph that you wrote and presented. You then decided to jettison half of the paragraph and claim that I'm still complying with it.

@CriticKende When it comes to academic sources: Szèlinger is clear about Hungary being much more willing to use force after 1935. Sadecki mentions that there were elements in the Hungarian government that called for military action. Čaplovič is sourced in the article's "Border conflicts and sabotage" on how the Hungarian army violently crossed the border as the negotiations were to begin, and Deák in Nullification is quoted as saying that the Vienna awards were illegal according to international law due to how millitary pressure was used to force an agreement. If we're gonna go with OrionNimrod's "pacisfist" version, and remove any mention of militarist elements in the Hungarian government from the paragraph, we will end up with a lede that is in conflict with the remainder of the article. Azure94 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I said it wrong somewhere that's why you misunderstand it. You agreed to the phrasing at the peaceful part. I'm not saying you think "some" should not be specified as "from the government". Gyalu22 (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Azure94 It is not nice that you ignore the other academic sources and contemporary people presented in the academic sources about the events.

Hi @Mesocarp, I think reading the sources and reading Azure, it is very clear that he deliberately falsify the info in the sources, which is not a fair-dealing behavior.

Azure totally ignores the vast amount of other sources and try to deform the other one.

Azure said: " zélinger is clear about Hungary being much more willing to use force after 1935"

Szélinger does not say at all that Hungary was willing to use force after 1935. First, Balázs Szélinger is not a historian, he works at the embassy of Hungary in Ethiopia. And Szélinger's book is about the Italo-Ethiopian war, he writes about that war started in 1935 and he writes very clearly: The Italian war confused Hungary, because until the Ethiopian war until that point in his story until 1935 is clear from the documents the peaceful revision politic: "This confused the Hungarian government led by Gyula Gömbös as far as the revision of the Trianon Peace Treaty was concerned, since - as it is clear from the documents - until 1935 a peaceful revision was their conception with Italy's diplomatic support." Double standard again by Azure, the text clearly says the peaceful revisionist conception is clear from the documents but Azure in all cost wants to hide this info despite he is happy to use the same text. The lead section of the First Vienna Award article talk about the past event before the First Vienna Award, and as we can see Szélinger clearly confirms the peaceful revision politic of Hungary.

Szélinger say that because Italy became agressor then Hungary began to look Germany as primarly ally in the revision. And we know Germany also became agressor in the future, and the future revison in 1941 was not peacfully because Hungary was engaged to Germany, because the previous peaceful revisions (First and Second Vienna Award 1938 and 1940) was by German support. So Hungary became Germany ally and needed to attack Yugoslavia as German request in 1941 Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories, and as I mentioned above the Hungarian Prime Minister killed himself because he wanted anyway a peaceful way. So not all former Hungarian territores were get back by peacefuly in the future, that is why Szélinger mention that. But before these future events the First Vienna Award was in 1938, it was a peacefully revision and before the period was peacfully as even the British politican claimed in the other source. And we are talking about the past not about the future in the lead, the past before the First Vienna Award in 1938.

Azure said: "Sadecki mentions that there were elements in the Hungarian government that called for military action."

The Polish source does not say the Hungarian government called for militay action, again Azure put those words in the mouth of the author. The source say: "While some called for military action, Hungarian revisionism mainly sought to reclaim the lost territories through peaceful means." And in the more stronger academic sources I do not read who called military action, but as I presented Hungarian government staff, governor, foreign affair ministers, prime ministers all wanted peaceful way and refused the military action even against Hitler request.

I do not read border conflicts in other soruces, only Slovak sources are presented there in the article, it would be a big double standard to say that Slovak sources are allowed and are good but Hungarian sources are all bad regarding a Hungarian-Czechoslovak history event. If there were local minor border conflict, it is not a government military action, but it does not matter what happened during the negotiation because in the lead we are talking about the past, the period before the First Vienna Award.

Azure: "If we're gonna go with OrionNimrod's "pacisfist" version"

It is not my version but all the academic sources say that. And yes it were military events: In the future.

Azure insulted me calling me "ultranationalist" and "irredentist" when I stated that the Czech troops attacked Hungary after WW1 when talking about the Czech annexation of Transcarpathia which is fact, contrast with this we can see Azure is very happy to invent Hungarian military agression in the period 1920-38 when it was not. So if I was "ultranationalist" according to him talking about real Czech military action against Hungary how should we call Azure by his own standard when he invents a non existent Hungarian military action against Czechoslovakia in the mentioned period?

It is well known that in 1947 by the Paris treaty the result of the First Vienna Award was reverted, but it also does not mean that the previous years 1920-38 did not happen. It is fact, it was no any military conflict before the negotiations of the First Vienna Award, as all academic sources say: "peaceful revision politic" in that period. And if WW2 in the future was a wartime, it still does not change the happened events in the past. If somebody get married at age 30 and the article is about her marriage, it will be not change the fact and the events of the previous period that between 1-29 years she was not a married.

I think this discuss is not about the article for a long time, about the historical facts, that by building an encyclopedia by a good faith, it is clear that Azure want to push his personal POV against the real historical events, against academic historical sources, against Wiki rules. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't read enough to be comfortable taking a position on this (sorry, daily life is still keeping me busy) but there's a couple things I want to note on the side.

The Szélinger source is the preface from Szélinger's PhD thesis in History at the University of Szeged (here's his CV). It's an excellent source, in part because that means it passed muster with the U. Szeged history department—it doesn't matter what Szèlinger himself is doing for a living today, it's the source itself that's important. It would be great if we could find the whole dissertation. Chapter III would add detail to his "until 1935" statement, for instance, which I'm sure would ease this discussion considerably.

We need to be very careful about synthesis, especially considering that these are contentious topics. I said it on the First Vienna Award talk page and I'm saying it again here. :P We really don't have room to read between the lines of the sources at all. From that position, I don't think the Szélinger source gives enough information to say anything as specific as "they did nothing militarily until 1941" or something like that. As I read it he basically says that Italy was behind Hungary in peaceful revision until 1935, when things changed in some sense due to Italy's invasion of Ethiopia. What things in particular changed are not all that clear from just that document (again it would be lovely if we could get his whole dissertation). As things stand, I feel need to turn to other sources to try to narrow down 1935–1938 further, which is the main reason why I haven't said anything recently—I still need to come to my own conclusions. 🍉◜⠢◞ↂ🄜𝚎sₒᶜa𝚛🅟ම𛱘‎🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 05:35, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mesocarp, in the previous comment I explained Szélinger. Btw I have no problem with Szélinger, but if Szélinger works at the embassy, it means he relates to the Orban government :) because always the actual government appoint staffs to the embassies. I am curious that Azure would be happy to use this source anymore... It is fact that no military action was by Hungary before the negotiation of the First Vienna Award in 1938, do you know any? I do not know. If it was no military action why it would be a problem calls the period of 1920-38 as peaceful revision politic if ALL sources say that, even Szélinger. Also it is important that please check the other provided new sources above by Hungarian Academy of Science and USA Universities.

Szélinger write about the Ethiopian war in 1935, until that point in his story he said that Hungary's ally with the peaceful revision was Italy, but Italy became aggressor, so this changed the politic of Hungary, and Hungary primarly ally in the revision became Germany and Germany also became aggressor in the future, and in 1938, 1940 the First and Second Vienna Awards were by negotiatons not by war, but with German support. So Hungary was engaged to Germany for this support. And in 1941 Hungary got back territories from Yugoslavia by war, so this was not a peaceful revision, because the Hungarian military action was by German pressure, even Hungarian prime minsiter killed himself because Hungary needed abandon the peaceful revision politic. Szélinger refers to the future that with allying Germany the peaceful revision was not possible in the future. However the article is about the First Vienna Award in 1938 and the previous period 1920-38 not about the future not about 1941 when the revision was not a peacefully.

I see an another double standard by Azure, he said that I should "be careful in the next time" when quoting sources, however I just did not copy pasted exactly the copyrigthed content: Talk:Gesta_Hungarorum#Dennis_Deletant But in our case we can see that Azure wanted to remove the "peaceful revision" term which we can see in ALL academic reliable sources, it seems he want to be not so careful in this case. :)OrionNimrod (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mesocarp Leslie Marie Waters's dissertation on page 51 quotes academician C.A. Macartney's book October Fifteenth, which on page 279 contains some interesting info about the Hungarian government sending covert troops to cause violence during the negotiations in Komarno. See the quotebox to the right. I think this further proves Sadecki's claim about there being elements inside the Hungarian government that desired a more violent path. Azure94 (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Azure94

We can add those details in the below section to article. I have no problem and no double standard to use various info from academic sources like you.

You showed nothing new those info was already in the article. The American book says the negotiations started on 9 October 1938. The Slovak delegation agreed to give back two overwhelmingly Hungarian border settlements. On October 15, the Hungarian army took possession of these two towns. "minor military skirmishes" "Hungarian irregular troops" "attempted to forment uprising" is this the big war action? "Hungarian government denied responsibility." "prisoners admitted" (perhaps by torture?) all those things like a secret service action by Hungary or by Czechoslovakia.

But this does not change the fact that which was the politic of Hungary before in previous period of 1920-38: Hungary mainly sought to reclaim the lost territories through peaceful way to restore its historical borders.

And in the lead we are talking about the background not about the future. It is deliberately that you try to erase the past period events by the events of the future period? What is this nonsense? Can we say France has no king in the past because France has no king today?

Doube standard again? Only cherry picking things what you like and deny what you do not like in the same source? It is deliberately that you want hide the other info in the same source regarding the events of the previous period? What is this behavior?

The same source says this:

"After the Anschluss, it was clear to many in the Hungarian Foreign Ministry and the government in general that the key to peacefully enlarging Hungary’s borders was to utilize the idea of national self-determination as the Germans had"

Contemporary British politican after the First Vienna Award in the same source:

"A British M.P., Major Henry Procter, toured the returned areas in January 1939. After being shown the frontier around the city of Munkács, Procter noted that “Hungary’s policy of peaceful revision will surely continue,” a policy he believed was necessary given the status of the “absolutely absurd frontier, which was drawn without any idea of local conditions." OrionNimrod (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure British M.P., Major Henry Procter must have been gravely disappointment when in just few months Hungary violently invaded Carpatho-Ruthenia. But for us it is a lesson to not blindly trust the words of an authoritarian country ruled by irredentist Hungarian politicians. It's good that modern scholars can distinguish between how Hungary tried to present itself, and the reality of how violent border incursions were used by both Hungary and Germany to terrify a weakened Czechoslovakia into accepting the Vienna awards. Of course, the ability of modern scholars to point out Hungarian government's duplicity goes against OrionNimrod's biases which command him to unquestionably trust primary sources, which in this case is the propaganda of an authoritarian inter-war Hungary.

It's becoming glaringly obvious that OrionNimrod simply WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT when the lede mentions Hungary's well sourced and documented use of violent acts both before and after the Vienna agreement. If OrionNimrod keeps WP:STONEWALLING to prevent the addition of academically sourced text, then he'll leave no other option but to take this to RfC. Azure94 (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Azure94 all linked 30+ academic sources clearly say Hungarian politic 1920-38: "Hungary mainly sought to reclaim the lost territories through peaceful way to restore its historical borders."

WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT by Azure, who wants to hide this info which presented by all reliable academic sources, personal POV and grievances does not matter. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiProject Hungary:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2023!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2023, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 13:08, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Panzerfaust

https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944-es_kiugrási_kísérlet

Currently the Hungarian page doesn't have any other language links, and the Operation Panzerfaust page doesn't have a Hungarian link.

I think they should be linked/joined. I don't know how do to it, and even less how to do it properly or where it should be discussed. Someone please do what needs to be done. Thanks. Cozmos22 (talk) Cozmos22 (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Debate here that Hungary would be "subtropical" country: Talk:Budapest#Climate

Uness232 refers to Köppen,

In the Köppen maps I see Hungary is clearly Dfb, Dfa which is continental.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Köppen-Geiger_Climate_Classification_Map.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Koppen-Geiger_Map_D_present.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Subtropical.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hungary_map_of_Köppen_climate_classification.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Koppen-Geiger_Map_HUN_present.svg

Hungarian wiki writes "continental":

https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyarország_éghajlata

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humid_subtropical_climate

"However, while some climatologists have opted to describe this climate type as a "humid subtropical climate",[2] Köppen himself never used this term. The humid subtropical climate classification was officially created under the Trewartha climate classification"

I see this is a Köppen map from 2023, indeed in that map I see Hungary in Dfa and Cfa (climate change?) https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41597-023-02549-6/MediaObjects/41597_2023_2549_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp

Uness232 first referenced the self Wiki link to the Köppen map File:Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Map.png as reference. I said I see Dfa and Dfb, then Uness232 said the map is wrong, and he referenced that chart https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02549-6/tables/1. But still I cannot see on that reference "humid subtropical" term.

What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]