" 

 == Oversimplification in terms of piros and vörös == 

 I was sorry to see your edits related to the above terms because you omitted several important things from the article. Just some examples: 

 *Mentioning the color chart is important because that's the criterium that the referred source (Berlin, B and Kay, P (1969) Basic Color Terms) uses. If two color names cannot clearly refer to two different hues on a color scale, their dual nature is not accepted. There was a discussion about it because someone stated that Portuguese also uses two words for red, but they failed this criterion just because they cannot be distinguished on a color chart. 
 *""piros is used for vivid red and vörös for dark red"" – this is true and it was a shame to change it to the present version. This is the essence of their primary difference. 
 *""Children are first taught this word for ""red""."" - it's also important because it shows that ""piros"" is found in a more elementary layer of language, it reveals a lot about the concept of ""red"" of native speakers of Hungarian. 
 *You changed: ""the use of either of the two words may be equally adequate"". False. When they are in contradiction, it's not true that they can be equally adequate, because collocations usually prevail even if another kind of logic could be applied (it can be seen at many natural objects that ""piros"" could be applied better but ""vörös"" is used, mostly because of their fixed collocations). 
 *You deleted ""rose-cheeked looks"" although ""piros arc"" clearly means health and cheer but ""vörös arc"" usually means alcohol or heart problems. 
 *I won't mention other examples in detail but I don't see why you mind them being there. 
 *You deleted: ""Some things, including inks, lights, roses, ribbons, and tapes, can be described by either colour name."" It's also important because most things (about 80-90%) can only be used with only one of the two color names and this is an exception which again reveals something important of Hungarians' cognitive schemes. 

 So I kindly ask you to revert your changes, except when it obviously means an improvement and not deterioration of the article (like including links or fixing English). Thank you so much in advance. 

  "