Talk:Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help me to improve the article, please do not delete it. Thanks. --Öcsi 14:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'm happy to help, but right now it's not even clear this is an encyclopedia article at all. It has no text at all. It's a half-complete demographics table. What is this article supposed to be about? Right now, it fails the no original research and the verifiablility rule - it has no sources. Please see also the rules on what Wikipedia is not (i.e., not a collection of indiscriminate information), and maybe Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles will also help. Please read (or at least skim) these pages, then feel free to ask me on this page if you have any questions - then do go ahead with writing an article on this topic. Best, Sandstein 18:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have a question: I try to put the demographic in the first paragraph, but it doesn't work. Could you help me? --Öcsi 18:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, this starts looking better. But I don't understand what the problem is with "the demographic". You can use German if you want to. Also, you should cite your source in English, not in Hungarian, and preferably in full (publisher, year etc.). Sandstein 19:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

1) I want to move the table into the first paragraph, but it doesn't work. (Ich will die ganze Tabelle über die Demographie der Komitate in den ersten Absatz verschieben, aber irgendwie geht es nicht, jetzt ist ja die Tabelle unter dem Absatz Kategorien, wo es ja falsch ist, ich möchte es von dort weghaben). Danke.

2) The name of the books are Révai Nagy Lexikóna (actually it's a book-row), or the older version Pallas Nagy Lexikóna, it has no english name (or what do you mean?).

3) I will give the full source, but at the moment I haven't got the books here, because I am not at home.

Cheers (or MfG) --Öcsi 09:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here I am (I do have a day job, you know...). Sorry, but the table issue confuses me too. It's probably something with the table template. My advice for you is to ask for help on the Wikipedia:Help desk. The people there will probably know.

As to the lexicon, what I mean is that you should cite it in a way that allows people to find it in a library. It's highly recommended that you use {{cite book}} for this, like that:

(1950) Révai Nagy Lexikóna. John Doe. ISBN 0-7869-1850-8. 

See Template:Cite book for more info.

Finally, if you do not feel like finishing the article now, it's advisable to work on it in user space. You can copy the article content to User:Öcsi/Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary to work on it there until it's finished, and replace the content in Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary with {{db-author}} to get it deleted for now. Otherwise, someone will certainly ask for it to be deleted at some point because it's not an encyclopedia article right now. Sandstein 18:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I know how to cite a book... but as I said above, I haven't got the book here, it's at home (I am going to be at home this weekend). OK, I gonna move the article to User:Öcsi/Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary. --Öcsi 13:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table

Table is not good. It should not be only for selected ethnic groups. There should be also place for smaller ethnic groups like Bunjevci and Šokci and also for data that count Bunjevci and Šokci together with Serbs. PANONIAN (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I delete it. PS: You don't really believe in that slovakian border-thing, my dear fellow? --Öcsi 17:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not place where we should discuss this. But where was west-south Slavic linguistic border then according to your valuable opinion? PANONIAN (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table 2

FZ, please stop this ridiculous revert war. The reasons why your table is bad are here:

• 1. You posted obviously wrong data into this table, in another words - you posted an FALSIFICATION. If 1910 census recorded citizens by language and only by language then why you changed that and listed ethnic groups instead of languages??? It is an obvious LIE because speakers of the language and members of ethnic groups are very different things. Check this web site: http://www.talmamedia.com/ Do you see there 1910 census data by ethnicity? No, you do not see it, of course...

Then there were obviously wrong datas in the specific county's paragraph. I've just started to merge all together in a single table. So then we can have a table for every census, plus some explanatory texts specifying whether the given census was based on ethnicity or mother language. What's wrong with this? --fz22 23:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, there was no "wrong datas in the specific county's paragraph" because censuses from 1715, 1720, etc were different from those in 1869-1910 period. For censuses in 1869-1910 period, we have only language data, and as such we have to post it like that. Language data is very different from ethnicity data, and I can show you that in example from last 2002 census in Subotica municipality, where language data show that 46.60% of population speak Serbian and 38.82% speak Hungarian. Should we then claim that Serbs are largest group in the municipality no matter that ethnic data show that ethnic groups in the municipality include 38.47% Hungarians and 24.14% Serbs? In 1910 too, many of those who declared in census to speak Hungarian were not ethnic Hungarians and therefore replacing terms "language" with "ethnicity" is nothing but falsification. You also cannot make a same table for census from 1910 and those from 1715-1720 because they were very different in both: methodology and presentation. PANONIAN (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We could have separate tables for every census, but it is senseless to recite each ethnic group for every county (over 40 items for germans just lengthen the article) ... BTW you deny even such an obvious fact, that the Hungarian nation was and still it is a cultural entity... --fz22 20:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The nature of the data that we have in this article require separate tables. Regarding your "cultural entity" issue, I will answer that like this: Mađarska is a cultural entity, but Ugarska was not. I believe you will understand what I said. :) PANONIAN (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• 2. Why you listed ethnic Hungarians first in every county when they were not majority there? PANONIAN (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Because, you like it or not, they were the most numerous ethnic group in the KOH since the first official census from 1780.

We do not present here census data for KOH, but for counties where Hungarians were not largest ethnic group. PANONIAN (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see now, the article is about counties "where Hungarians were not largest ethnic group" quite strange :) so be it. --fz22 20:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nobody stopping you to post data for other counties too. You have all data that you need here: http://www.talmamedia.com/ PANONIAN (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

• Census results for every county should list first the largest ethnic group in the county in that census. PANONIAN (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Who said this? The Statistical standards for Census says exactly the opposite. Watch and learn: http://recensamant.referinte.transindex.ro/?pg=9&id=2 --fz22 23:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, this is not Romanian statistical office, but English Wikipedia, and standards here are different. In publications such is Wikipedia, census results are usually listed in such way that largest ethnic group is always listed first. If Romanian statistical office list Romanians first there, then why Harghita article on Wikipedia list Hungarians first? You have double standards fz22, right? PANONIAN (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

May I have a suggestion? for those counties where the Hungarians percentage is on top use the ethnic composition for every municipality, comunity, vilage ... --fz22 20:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The practice here is that if we speak about population of one county, district, municipality, village, etc, that we always list first ethnic group that is largest in that county, district, municipality or village. Here you have examplers: county, district, municipality, village. You can see that Hungarians are listed there first because they are largest ethnic groups in these places, no matter that these places are parts of larger political units where Hungarians are not largest ethnic group. So, let just use same standards everywhere. PANONIAN (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I agree with Panonian, and should the need arise to have one single table, the ethnicities should be in alphabetical order (so that everybody is satisfied)...The more important issue about this article written by the chronic nationalist Ocsi is that the results of the 1910 are technically worthless (because manipulated in several ways) and that older censi are still missing here. Juro 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Fz, but, in my opinion, we should keep panonian's version of the demographic tables. --Öcsi 14:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fiume/Rijeka is missing...

... isn't it? --213.182.117.60 09:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)