Talk:Hungary

An event mentioned in this article is an October 23 selected anniversary.

---

Prime Minister

Medgyessy is not the PM of Hungary anymore as of 2004-08-19.
Updating page. UED77 16:39, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)

MSZP nominated Ferenc Gyurcsány as the next prime minister on 2004-08-25. SyP 17:35, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

Origin legends

Removed text: Two twin sons were born to him. These two sons were called Hunor and Magor, the ancestors of the Huns and the Magyars (Hungarians) Nimrod also had other sons. This didn't seem to belong in the article, at least not as the beginning paragraph. Would someone who knows more on the subject place it where it belongs? -- April

It was an excerpt from the "Legend of the Wonder Deer" (chance of mistranslation from me) which is one of the oldest Hungarian legends about the origin of Magyars. The two names explain why we're called Hungarians (->Hunor) and Magyars (->Magor). I believe this would justify a page itself, but I don't have enough source materials. grin 10:49 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Holidays

Copied from .at by Grin.

moved to Public holidays in Hungary by shallot.

Historic counties

Hello,

There is a page called List of historic counties of Hungary. People seem really enthusiastic about making historical provinces of Sweden, but there aren't many pages with Hungarian counties, modern or historic. Is there a better place to say this? For example, request pages or something like that?

---Dagestan

I guess there aren't as many Hungarian editors as Swedish ones. :-) But apart from that counties aren't something special in Hungary, they're simply areas of administration, so probably people don't have plenty of emotions about them to drive 'em into sinking in article writing. It is much more probable that there are Hungarian who'd like to write about parts of Hungary which used to be "ours" but not anymore (you know, 65% of the area of "Great-Hungary") but would anger fellow romanian, serbian, slovak editors. :-) Still, as you see, sometimes someone happen to write about them, but I wouldn't expect much info on that in the near future. Cities are much probable targets. For example I wrote about Lake Theiss which is something you can relate emotionally to (as being the largest artifical lake in Europe :))... --grin 08:02, 2004 Mar 29 (UTC)

I beg to differ. My county IS special. :) – Alensha 12:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Admiral Horthy

"During this state of anarchy, Admiral Miklós Horthy was persuaded to take power. Over a decade later, Horthy made a limited alliance with Nazi Germany in the 1930s in order to revise the Treaty of Trianon. Hungary took an active part in world war II and was rewarded by Germany with territories belonging to Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania. However, Hitler had to replace Horthy with a Hungarian Nazi collaborator in order to avoid Hungary defection after Germans defeats by Russia in 1943."

• Hungary was part in World War II starting from June 1941, so Germany couldn't reward Hungary with territories, for its participation on war, in 1938 and 1940. Germany reward Hungary for their limited alliance before 1938.
• Horthy was replaced after the defeats of year 1944, on mid October.

(preceding unsigned comment by Vasile 19:24, 17 May 2004 (UTC) (KissL 10:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)))

After the short-lived 'autumn rose revolution' of 1918, a liberal attempt to lead the defeated and utterly demoralised country out of the end-of-war chaos failed, the communists took power without a single shot being fired. A dictatorship was established after the new Soviet model, but with that came also the ability to push back attempts by the newly formed "small entente" states, like Czechoslovakia and Romania to grab more territory to create "facts on the ground" prior to the upcoming Versailles peace treaty. The Western powers' fear of the spread of communism made it easy to provide support to anyone, thus the emergence of Horthy, an admiral for a country with no navy, who sailed into Budapest with the help of the Romanian army. After the short-lived 'red terror' came the 'white terror' a brutal right wing dictatorship, that created incredible poverty for most and equally incrredible wealth for a few, blaming all its problems on the Trianon (Versailles) peace treaty. The 1930's Great Depression hit Hungary particularly hard and the ruling establishment sided with Nazi Germany, hoping for some form of revision of the borders. The loyalty paid off, as in the 1st and 2nd Vienna Decisions in 1938, parts of Transylvania and Slovakia were returned to Hungarian rule. Horthy lead the country to war in 1941, joining Germany to fight the Soviet Union. After the 2nd Hungarian Army was devastated in 1942 and especially after the tide turned in the battle of Stalingrad, it became apparent that the war will be Germany's to loose. Feeble, behind-the-scenes attempts to negotiate Hungary's quitting the war failed, but it also alerted the Germans and the Wehrmacht marched into Hungary in March of 1944. On October 15th, Horthy and his circle decided to make a desperate last attempt to quit the war and surrender to the Allies, but the Germans found out and forcefully removed Horthy from power, installing their own puppet regime, led by Ferenc Szálasi, the leader of the Arrowcross Party, who fought the advancing Red Army to the bitter end, causing unspeakable suffering to all.

Horthy's place in history is dubious. He was a convenient alternative to the much feared communist advance, but as a politician, he was weak, undecisive and utterly naive in his dealings with the Nazis. He tried to freeze Hungary to its feudal past, instead of advancing it towards a more modern liberal democracy and industrialisation. His acknowledgments should be limited to creating relative stability for some 25 years in an era of tumultuous events; the same role a later leader, from the other end of the political spectrum, János Kádár played in the 2nd half of the 20th century.

(preceding unsigned comment by 69.158.50.144 03:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC) (KissL 10:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)))

Let me disagree with this last sentence about Kádár. Horthy never supervised the politically motivated executions and imprisonments of hundreds, even less executions of people sharing (nominally) similar political views, which Kádár did in 1956, without the slightest remorse. So in this sense, the two are not comparable (which is of course not to whitewash what Horthy did wrong). KissL 10:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV question (independence day)

An edit to the table bothers me, but I don't know very much about Hungarian history, so I'm reluctant to be bold in editing. The table had given October 31, 1918 as the date of independence. The edit by Vital component changed the table to give the date of "Establishment" as December, 1000 and added the line "de-unified October 31, 1918." The first point seems wrong because the modern polity was in fact established in 1918, the political situation before then having been very different, regardless of what happened in 1000. The latter change seems even worse, as it implies acceptance of one particular point of view, namely that the "true" Hungary includes all the territories that were part of the Kingdom of Hungary before World War I. I strongly suspect that the current version is not consistent with the NPOV policy. The article itself discusses establishment of the kingdom in 1000 and the change in boundaries after World War I, so restoring the table to its former wording would not suppress any information. JamesMLane 12:25, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah. While the independence from Austria wasn't done in particularly favorable circumstances for the Hungarians, it's still a fact that this is the latest independence date and that's used in all the other pages... --Shallot 17:04, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

For some countries the National Day doesn't coincide with (latest) independence date. --Vasile 19:35, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but that's beside the point. The WikiProject Countries template clearly states that the table row should include independence dates, declared and recognized. There's a separate section/page for "national days" and whatever other public holidays there are. --Shallot 20:40, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That row in template is a wrong choice. In reality, every country has at least one national day; some like UK or France, don't declare any independence day. Anyway, the template is not aplied for every country, exp. China. In Hungary's case, I think the usefull information is "national day - August 20". --Vasile 02:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Except that the row doesn't define the /holiday/, it defines the date of independence. Just because someone doesn't like the fact that Austrian supremacy disappeared on some date that doesn't make the simple fact go away. I'd defer the issue of whether or not to apply the template to more experienced Wikipedians... --Shallot 09:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please read here Independence.--Vasile 13:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What about it? The CIA used the "date that sovereignty was achieved" as they say and that's true. --Shallot 17:39, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the year than about the day. It seems wrong to date independence from 1000 when, until 1918, Hungary was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Isn't 1918 the relevant year of independence for this purpose? JamesMLane 04:40, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hungary was made independent around y1k when a Pope first crowned a Magyar king, but not only did many other countries did that, it wasn't as independent inbetween during long periods so this is not the most direct date of independence. --Shallot 09:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd say 1918, too, if I would have to pick an "independence day". But that's stupid because Hungarians never mention it that way, mainly because that "independence" meant cutting Hungary apart instead of detaching it from Austria.... and I do not think that could be considered "independence". --grin ✎ 19:10, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

It's just so that all countries can be compared by it. I'm not gung-ho on that whole concept but it seems valid enough and the template is consensual. For stuff the local people like more, the local independence day and other things, there's the history section and the public holidays article. --Shallot

I asked around on the hu.wikipedia and people (incl. me) offered these dates (in order of preference):

1. october 23, 1989 - indep. from USSR / soviet bloc
2. october 23, 1956 - indep. from USSR
3. march 15, 1848 - indep. from austria
4. 1000 AD - foundation

Nobody seem to prefer 1918 which is not a suprise at all considering the losses the country suffered back then. I'd wait for some weeks for more opinions to come and after that I may change the date to the most preferred, if nobody objects. --grin ✎ 12:57, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

A Magyar Lanyok

Why I can't see nothing on this page about the fact that hungary has far the most beatiful girls of the world? It should be important as the independece day date! :-) isn't it?

yeah! I can really confirm! User:Bushit 18:14 11 Jul 2004 CET

Ask a chinese, an australian native or an african tribesman. Or to put it in other words: all generalisations are false. (Btw, there are pretty and ugly girls everywhere. Even in England! :)) [You can mention that as a misconception.] --grin ✎ 15:28, 2004 Jul 16 (UTC)

Demographic data

WHERE ARE THE 8% RROMA (GYPSY) IN YOUR DATA?

Vasile wrote: Demographics - CIA world factbook information about ethnic groups is not accurate. I don't know about "religions".)

I didn't see it as inaccurate as much as it was one year older than your new data... in any event, the margins of error seemed fairly reasonable. I had restored the religions stuff with less exact numbers in order to alleviate any possible out-of-datedness concern. --Shallot 17:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

From 2001, official Population Count numbers:

Out of the (registered) minorities (314,000 people, 3.07%) these are the distributions. Paranthesed numbers are distribution of mother tongues among the 136,000 people who was born with one of these.

minority	identity	mother tongue
gypsy	60.5%	(36%)
german	19.8% (	25%)
croat	5%	(10%)
polski	0.94%	(2%)
greek	0.8%	(1.5%)
bolgar	0.43%	(1%)

That makes 1.84% gypsy, 0.6% german etc... sigh.

Source: http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/hun/kotetek/04/tartalom.html --grin ✎ 22:48, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)

Minor edit required

There is a page on Ferenc Szalasi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferenc_Sz%E1lasi and also pages on Jews and Romas, both of which should be capitalised as well as linked to. Likewise there's a page on the Holocaust which should be linked to

Problematic modifications

I find the newest modifications to this page (contributions of 62.168.125.98) problematic. Partially because they removed useful information (like Hungary's landscape consists mostly of the flat to rolling plains of the Carpathian Basin), and partially because they inserted questionable details (such as Hungary was developed on the basis of the administrative and political division of Great Moravia). The same user modified the article Stephen I of Hungary, too [1]. I don't know where that information comes from, AFAIK, mostly german knights helped Stephen to win the battle against the revolting Hungarian warlords. His modifications seem to indicate that the editor might be Slovakian, overestimating the importance of Slovak influence in certain matters, but of course I might be completely wrong. I'd like to revert these changes, but first I'd like to hear the opinion of others.

--Dhanak 17:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I manually reverted and/or corrected the modifications. --DHanak :-V 19:09, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Population figures

The page says that the current figure for the population is 10.006 million people. Although there seems to be a wide range of data on the Internet (from reliable sources) regarding Hungary's population (for example the United Nations says it is 9.8 million), shouldn't the population data on this page be the one from the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (Központi Statisztikai Hivatal). I would think that they are the most accurate source of information about Hungary's population. The most recent estimate they gave was 10.097 million in November 2004. --Hungarian83 04:25, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

Map

A controversy has erupted over the choice of map for this article. The two candidates are shown here, along with any others that other Wikipedians may choose to enter. Feel free to make any comments. The lower map may also appear in the corresponding Geography article for this country. Kelisi 03:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both are good, but I still don't understand why Sopron and Dunaújváros are among the cities on the map... I mean, it shows the 10 largest cities, then skips 11-18, and shows the 19th and 20th. I guess the one who drew the map lived in these cities or had family there... Alensha 17:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jews from Budapest saved by Horthy during the Holocaust?

I've found a strange clause:

but the Jewish population of Budapest (approx.200,000) wasn't let to be transported into eliminatory camps because Horthy hindered it.

This clause seems to be rather suspicious. Could anyone back it up?

Adam78 12:54, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree, but remember this is a very hot topic in Hungary... Many people think it was Horthy's work to save the Budapest Jews. But one must remember that Hungarian (non-Budapest) Jews were deported in the spring-summer of 1944, when Horthy was still in power, but there is a legend (or fact????) that Horthy could prevent deporting the Jews of the capital. Thus, I don't recommend deleting this, but some edit would be necessary, to emphacise Horthy's ambiguous role. --Sicboy 23:05, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

I removed it; it has grown far too long for such a fractal detail as it is, moreover the point is not mentioned in either History of Hungary or Miklós Horthy. If someone finds it important and has the appropriate sources, feel free to work the point out in one of these. KissL 6 July 2005 13:33 (UTC)

Avars

This article speaks about the Avars but Wikipedia has two articles about the Eurasian and Caucasian Avars. To which does this article refer? Jaberwocky6669 21:52, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Independence

Why is the independence date stated as 1989. It was never part of the Sovjet-Union. Then the date of independence of Romania, Poland, etc. would also be 1989. Hungary's 'independence' from Austria-Hungary would be 1918, allthough 1867 as Hungary gets more independence within Austria-Hungary could also be seen as that date. But 1989 is very strange in my opinion, it was 'only' the liberation of the Sovjet Sphere.--62.234.6.146 12:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Hungary became independent on 16 November 1918, by a proclamation in Budapest: that's the least recent date since which there has continuosly been a country called Hungary. No one in Hungary will think of this date as the date of independence though: the time of the Magyar conquest (~896) or the establishment of the Hungarian kingdom (1000) (or even the Ausgleich (1867), the downfall of the Communist single-party system (1989), and the uprising of 23 October 1956) are all more important, emotionally. However, this doesn't change the fact.

Yes, but since this article is about Hungary, shouldn't it reflect minor details like "No one in Hungary will think of this date as the date of independence". Most of the dates you listed would work fine. I personally would only put the 1000 date. However, 1918 is not a good date. A nation's independence does not usually coincide with the loss of most of its land, more than half of its citizens (regardless of nationality), and the displacement of some 3 million Hungarians! Of course, this took place in 1920 with the Treaty of Trianon, not in 1918. If not 1000, then the date for independence should read 1867 when Austria and Hungary became a power sharing federation. Before that Austria had most of the power, but in 1867 the two countries had mostly equal power (apart from foreign policy and the military, which Austria had control over). The empire had two capitals: Budapest and Vienna. I believe we should reconsider the date and change 1918 to 1867, and of course still keep the year 1000. --Hungarian83 18:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if we didn't consider Hungary independent in 1988, then the correct independence date would be 1991, because that's when the Soviet army finally left Hungary.

As for a recent anonymous edit claiming that Panonian, who added the correct independence date, is a "hungarist"... just lol. Dear vandal, this just proves that you're more eager to push something even though it has just come to your mind (and is also nonsense) than to view a userpage. KissL 14:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

History section

Don't you think that the history section is unnecessarily long and detailed now? The text in the main article is supposed to give a basic overview (who and when ruled) and the rest belongs into "History of Hungary".Juro 16:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Language section

szia - hello Boldog Szuletesnapot - Happy Birthday Jonapot - good day Boldog Karacsonyt - Happy Christmas User: Laura1Laura 10:36, 6 Octover 2005

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ROMA PEOPLE

The page says that the current figure for the population is 10.006 million people. Although there seems to be a wide range of data on the Internet (from reliable sources) regarding Hungary's population (for example the United Nations says it is 9.8 million).

I would think that they are the most accurate source of information about Hungary's population. The most recent estimate they gave was 9.797 million in October 2005. --Hungarian83 04:25, 2005 oct 10(UTC)

The above statements were NOT posted by Hungarian83, but by 86.105.71.34. Hungarian83 originally added a similar statement in February, 2005. Olessi 17:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Hungarian Central Statistical Office states that the population is 10.084 million people. I think international estimates do not count with the immigration (appr. +20 thousands a year). -nagytibi ! ? 21:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Everybody knows that Hungary in the present does NOT have more than 10,000,000 people. It has only 9,800,000 people, why not tell the truth? see official site of EU to confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.71.34 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Why am I talking with a vandal? -nagytibi ! ? 22:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

why are you talking with a valach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.236.10.9 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The TRUTH ABOUT the 9,900,000 people of HUNGARY:

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/population-health/country-profile-83.html (in this link there are only 9,867,000 people in Hungary)

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107620.html (here only 10,006,000 but is old 2001)

It is noted that in the next 40 years, Hungary's population will decrease by at least 300,000 and possibly by over a million persons. Almost 40 percent of Hungary's population lives in rural areas -- although agriculture accounts for only 5 percent of GDP and 6 percent of the workforce. Only 16 years ago, more than one-fifth of Hungary's population worked in agriculture.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/hungary/ (only 9,900,000 :-))

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.71.34 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I visited this site :) Population 10,2 million, Ethnic profile Hungarian (96,6%) So what are you talking about? And same the for Roma, if 96,6% Hungarian, less then 3,4% Roma, not 6%. You are from Romania, you must know, that 15 thousand people moves from there to Hungary a year. -nagytibi ! ? 17:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear anon, I also doubt the credibility of the "sources" (e.g. http://www.gay-europa.com/hungary.htm) you cited for the "new" population figures. The only serious source you mentioned was "http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/hungary/", but as Nagytibi explained above, these numbers are much closer to those already in the article (as of 18:15, 16 October 2005) than to those that you inserted. So could I ask you to find some reliable sources before making controversial changes, please? --Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 18:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The Roma compose roughly six per cent (some 600,000) 6% of Hungary's population. The majority live in regions east and north of Budapest, and there are significant numbers of Roma in southwestern Hungary as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.71.34 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The most accurate population values are indisputably the ones given by the Hungarian Central Statistical Office. You are welcome to bring up any relevant arguments explaining why there is a statistical error regarding Roma people in the censuses and the calculations – there probably is one –, but if you either:

• Replace the data with random unsourced ones, or
• Lie about what certain sources say or do not say, or
• Lie about who you are (ie. use another person's signature),

you'll be considered a vandal and/or a troll, and will be dealt with as such.

KissL 08:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

86.105.71.34 copy-pasted the entire text of this page here. I have removed it, since this amounts to both talkpage abuse and copyright violation. I'm preserving the link. KissL 15:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Impersonation

I have not logged on in over a week, so this issue only came to my attention now. Thank you, User: Olessi for bringing this to my attention in my User talk page. I tracked the IP 86.105.71.34 and found it to be located in Bucharest, Romania. The user seems to have some nationalistic, anti-Hungarian sentiment.

Actually, the hostname is "dyn-86.105.71.34.cj.upcnet.ro" and cj means Cluj. bogdan | ^Talk 18:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Please note that I don't change things without first discussing them (and arriving at a consensus)...that is why I never made any changes to the population figures following my February post, since I received no responses. Also, I would never even bring up an issue unless it was from a valid statistical source, such as the KSH (Központi Statisztikai Hivatal) - Central Statistical Office of Hungary. I'm glad that a record of page edits is maintained, with the true editor User name or IP address displayed. --Hungarian83 16:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Culture Section

Added culture section. Any improvements welcome. --Charm Quark^?? 13:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Television Vewiers

I've read that much much much fewer people in hungary wath t.v. than in america. I've been to Hungary and also noticed thet they are less interested in t.v. and those kinds of things. They'd rather go play outside, or with their friends. - Abhorsen123 02:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Daco-Romanians

At the end of 16th century 250,000 Magyars+Szekelys; 100,000 Romanians; 100,000 Saxons lived in Transylvania ... Romanian majority?? far from it ...

Says who? Sorry, but you have been dissinformed. I think this is a good place to show how the dissinformations goes in Hungary. Can you look at http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/faf/toc20.htm? Even when there are sources, Hungarians simply deny them. Or even beter, invent. If you use sources preferentially depending if they suits your needs, you won't have a correct POV. Here is a quote from the website:

WINKLER PRINS,
Amsterdam: Elsevier (?), 1953,
,,RUMANIA,,
(summary of translation; notes)
Rumania (Roemanie) is one of the Balkan republics in SE Europe. Its size 238,000km2, its population 16,090,000. It borders on Russia to the N, Hungary to the W, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria to the S and the Black Sea to the E. The Rumanians are descended from the Dacians of old, who were related to the Thracians. However, the Rumanians also carry the genes of members of the occupying Roman troops and the colonists representing various races. - In 1939 the population of Rumania was composed of 72% Rumanians (Wallachians), 8% Magyars/Hungarians, 4% Jews, 4% Germans and 11% Gypsies. Besides there were smaller numbers of Turks, Ruthenians, Bulgarians and Ukrainans
N.B.[*] The claim that the Rumanians are the descendants of the Dacians and Romans has been diligently disseminated throughout the world, as seen in the above source, too. The claim is based on the so-called Daco-roman theory according to which the birthplace of the Rumanian state was the area of what is now known as Transylvania. This has never been proven in a satisfactory way either by written documentation or by truthful archaeological evidence. It is astonishing that in 1953 Winkler Prins allowed itself to be the vehicle of Bucharest propaganda. Was it for the same reason that it gave no space to an article on Transylvania?

(!) The N.B. marked with [*] is a comment of the Hungarian editor of the website (historian ??? I wouldn't name him historian) and it shows the way you like to interpret sources.

The majority of Daco-Romans and consecvently of Romanians in Transilvaniy has a historic, ethnologic and lingvistic argumentation. Even in spite of the magyarization that began to take place from the moment (1003) when the Hungarian Kingdom invaded Transilvania, even in spite of the crimes against Romanians that were done later, even in spite of forcing the Romanians to change names to magyar version, the Romanians are still majority today. In 16th century Hungarians were far less than today.

I will have to revert your NPOV edits. -Paul- 10:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Later Edit: I changed my mind. It doesnt really matter if that sentence is there or not. I know (and most of non-hungarians) know the truth. It is not the place here to wirte it :). Cheers!

---

To Fz22 you have erased by mistake (I presume :)) the paragraph about King Stephen extending domination over Transylvania. Don't worry, I will repair it. -Paul- 10:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It was no mistake ... Pls decide first who "conquered" Transylvania chieftain Tuhutum (according to Gesta Hungarorum - Romanian "edition") or King Stephen? GH gives the number of Magyar clans at 108, and each of them could produce 2,000 armed men and speaks of Magyars killed chieftain Almos before entering Transyilvania around 896 ... these details are often skipped ...

So in 1003 King Stephen began a campaign to accomplish his centralization policy started with conquering the "Somogy country" led by Koppany in 997 and finished with a campaign against Ajtony chieftain in 1010-1020. BTW chief Gyula, Stephen's uncle, surrendered and was transported to Szekesfehervar.--fz22 11:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I only made this article coherent with that about Transylvania. -Paul- 13:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)