Talk:Hungarian diaspora/Archive 1

Jewish people

Jewish Hungarians are (ethnic) Hungarians like Christian Hungarians. The Hungarian nation is a "cultural nation", so a Jewish people, who speaks Hungarian and lives (or born) in Hungary, belongs to Hungarian nation.--Rovibroni (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Immigration

The article refers to recent events as "immigration" (like Hungarians in Brazil), Hungarians are autochthonous people in all territories of the Kingdom of Hungary and where they have lived for hundreds of years. Squash Racket (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's take Transylvania for example. Please explain why are Hungarians autochthonous in Transylvania? This is simply not true.

Autochthonous means indigenous or native people. Hungarians are not native to the Carpathian Basin simply because they arrived in Europe from Central Asia and settled in Pannonia in 896 AD.

Transylvania was part of the Ancient Kingdom of Dacia and was inhabited by Dacians for centuries until it was conquered by the Romans in 106 AD.

The Romans introduced colonists as they did all over the Roman Empire. The colonists spoke Vulgar Latin and mixed with the indigenous populations. This mix resulted into new races and languages over time. For instance, in Hispania - Spaniards and Portuguese, in Galia - French, in Dacia - Proto-Romanians and so on.

The territory from East of Tisa until the Nistru was inhabited by Proto-Romanians.

Because of its position at a crossroad between Asia and Europe, it was invaded by various nomads which came from Asia such as Avars, Huns, Mongols, Cumans, Tatars, Bulgars and Magyars.

All of these nomads destroyed villages and took control of the territory but the indigenous people were mostly rural and took refuge in the forests and mountains.

By the time the Magyars invaded Transylvania, this territory was organized into the 3 Vlach (Romanian) vojvodeships of Glad, Gelu and Memnumorut. This is mentioned in the Gesta Hungarorum (An early Hungarian Chronicle).

So, bottom line, Romanians (and not Magyars) are autochthonous in Transylvania as they were in Wallachia and Moldavia.

However some say that Szeklers are descendants of the Huns but even if this is true, that still doesn't make them autochthonous in the so called Szekely Land because the Huns arrived in Europe in the IV-V centuries which was after the Romanian Ethno-genesys was complete in 275 AD, after Aurelianus withdrew from Dacia.

Scooter20 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Gesta Hungarorum is an unreliable source, mostly a work of fiction that only Romanians take seriously.

See Origin of the Romanians for ongoing dispute on the population of Transylvania.

I repeat: the article differentiates between recent immigration (like Brazil) and the territories where Hungarians lived for hundreds of years or more than a thousand years (like Transylvania). Squash Racket (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I added reliable, English references for Transylvania and Slovakia. This discussion seems to be over. Squash Racket (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Living for 1000 years as a minority in a place (Transylvania) doesn't make them autochthonous. Are the Turks authochtonous in Asia Minor? of course not! Are the Spanish or Portuguese autochthonous in South America? of course not! Just like Hungarians aren't autochthonous in Transylvania, Slovakia, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Austria and Ukraine.

Hungarians invaded Transylvania by bringing colonists over the indigenous Vlach population (which was always a majority, even after 1000 years of Magyarization)

Vlachs were the first race to inhabit and were a majority in Transylvania but received absolutely no rights under the Hungarian rule. That is a typicall pattern of the invader (immigrant) oppressing the native population.

Scooter20 (talk) 07:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Gesta Hungarorum is an unreliable source, mostly a work of fiction that only Romanians take seriously.
See Origin of the Romanians for ongoing dispute on the population of Transylvania. According to a theory Romanians only showed up in the 12th century in Transylvania. So if Hungarians are "immigrants", Romanians are passing tourists there?
I added reliable, English references for Transylvania and Slovakia. This discussion seems to be over. (I don't like to repeat myself, only when forced to.) Squash Racket (talk) 05:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Origin of Romanians has 2 main theories. The Daco-Romanian continuity (which is obviously the most plausible one since Romanians are descendants of Latinised Dacians and speak a language which evolved from Vulgar Latin) and the "migration from the south" theory which was fabricated by Robert Roesler and the Hungarians in order to justify ruling Transylvania. A land which was mainly inhabited by Vlach/Romanians, which although a majority (over 50-60%) never received any rights or privileges. (Magyars, Saxons and Szeklers received rights although combined they numbered less than the Romanians).

Romanians started to demand rights and a union with the Mother Land, in a time in which Austria-Hungary was in decline and native minorities started to demand rights.

This is what determined the evolution of the Roesler theory (which no doubt is false) because Austria-Hungary wanted to keep its rule over those territories in which Austrians and Hungarians were a minority.

Scooter20 (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your sources, give me some quotes from them in which it actually proves that Hungarians were the first race in Transylvania. This thing has never been proven (because it is false, and thus, cannot be proven). Whatever "so called" proofs are just Hungarian speculations.

Scooter20 (talk) 13:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, discussion still seems to be over, references are reliable, citations correct. Squash Racket (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion is not over and probably won't be over soon! This is not a valid proof but simply one's (Pro Hungarian) opinion about the matter, a hidden and disguised word in a few hundred pages book. Anyone can write a book with their own claims! I need solid evidence!

Scooter20 (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Romanians are indigenous to Transylvania. Added reference! Scooter20 (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As shown in the reference you deleted Hungarians are indigenous in Transylvania! This article is about Hungarians, not Romanians!! Squash Racket (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's quite simple! I can't believe you didn't understand it! If Romanians are indigenous to Transylvania it means that Hungarians aren't, so that makes them immigrants into Transylvania! It's quite clear! The statement refers to Hungarians after all! Scooter20 (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

That is WP:SYNTH, hard to believe you can't understand it. Next time you remove the relevant, reliable source while adding one that doesn't belong in this article, I'll ask an administrator to put it back. Squash Racket (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL, you make me laugh!

What makes your reference better than mine? Please enlighten me here!

Yours states that Hungarians are indigenous in Transylvania. Mine states that Romanians are indigenous in Transylvania (which means that Romanians were first in Transylvania and by deduction it also means that Hungarians arrived later which makes them immigrants.

So my reference is related to the Hungarian diaspora after all. It states that Hungarians are not indigenous in Transylvania but Romanians are).

The problem with both of these references is that they are not solid evidence (everyone can write a book with their claims! But citing a book like that isn't proof!).

Since solid evidence wasn't found yet I suggest that we mark the status of the Hungarians in Transylvania as unknown or disputed!

Don't give me wrong, I'm convinced that Romanians are indigenous in Transylvania but I'm willing to make this compromise since there is no solid evidence from either way!

I hope you understand!

Scooter20 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You don't understand the meaning of WP:SYNTH.
This article is about Hungarians, NOT Romanians. Nobody cares here about the status of the Romanians. The reference that you deleted says Hungarians are indigenous in Transylvania, nobody cares about the status of Romanians here. This the last time I revert your edit (see WP:3RR), you've been warned enough times. Squash Racket (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you're saying that you like to take something for granted as true ("Hungarians are indigenous in Transylvania"), and try to destroy and ignore all other things that prove the contrary ("Romanians are indigenous in Transylvania"). This sound like an anti-Wikipedia concept to me.

The status should be disputed since the references are divergent and there is no solid proofs! You should be banned for denying debate, and claiming your personal opinion as true! Scooter20 (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The two things are contrary in your mind, NOT in the references (WP:SYNTH). I cited a reliable source, you cited an irrelevant reference (article has NOTHING to do with Romanians, will you finally understand this simple fact?). Squash Racket (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has much to do with Romanians since you claim that Hungarians are indigenous in Transylvania where in fact they're not! It has to do with Romanians since Transylvania (which is inhabited by a Romanian majority and is mentioned in the article) is an integral part of Romania.

Since the two nations are involved in the debate and since it's clear that both of them cannot be indigenous. It's clear that a statement like "Romanians are indigenous in Transylvania" is equivalent to "Hungarians are not indigenous in Transylvania".

But as I said before, since your reference is not a solid proof (and neither is mine). The status of the Hungarians in Transylvania is disputed due to lack of solid proof.

Unless you come up with solid proof that Hungarians are indigenous in Transylvania I suggest that you mark it as disputed!

Scooter20 (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You still don't understand WP:SYNTH. Later I will revert the edit. Squash Racket (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that you don`t understand WP:SYNTH. Please, don`t write your pro-hungarian "facts" on wikipedia as you like. If you have any problems with your "facts" please contact Admin on wikipedia, anyway you can`t write that Hungarians are indigenous people in Romania because it`s an insult to healthy thinking and to over 2000 years of history of Romanians and their ancestors, in worse case possible you can write it "disputed", but before making any changes please consult Admin first. If you are so keen to write that Hungarians are indigenous people somewhere, you can write it in Mongolia because as history facts tells us, Hungarians are the descendant of Huns. Greetings from Timisoara, Romania. iadrian (talk) 07:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference that you added does NOT say that Hungarians are "immigrants" in Transylvania. That is original research and a false citation. In fact, even that reference mentions the Hungarian Székely tribe first and mentions Romanians only in "Medieval Transylvania".

Saying that Hungarians can't be indigenous, because another reference refers to Romanians as such is a violation of WP:SYNTH.

Regardless of the debate over the early population of Transylvania the article is about Hungarians, NOT Romanians. The reference that you removed clearly mentions the indigenous Hungarian population of Transylvania and will be added back. Squash Racket (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem here is simply with English, or lack of English with regards to the meaning of the word indigenous, a definition has to be looked up first. It seems that a user misunderstands the definition of the word. Or alternatively one user does not understand the word immigrant and thinks one can still be an immigrant if their ancestors came to a place 1100 years ago, that's not the case. Hobartimus (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, of course Hungarians are not immigrant in the right sens of the word, but they can`t be indigenous people either. Maybe we can find some word that describes the status of Hungarian minority in Romania.Thank you for your answer iadrian (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really. We are talking about Transylvania, not Romania. Here both nations may be mentioned as indigenous in the respective articles. If we say Hungarians are "immigrants" there, then we should refer to Romanians of Transylvania as "immigrants" in other articles (for example the article "Romanians").

BTW the English reference very clearly talks about the "indigenous Hungarian population of Transylvania". Just a reminder. Squash Racket (talk) 07:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Exuse me, Transilvania is an ancient Romanian province, now part of Romania. Hungarians can`t be considered indigenous in the right sense of the word even in Europe. So we are talking about Romania, or Romanian province Transilvania. iadrian (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, that's a theory. So we are only talking about Transylvania. Rather we are only talking about WHAT THE REFERENCES ACTUALLY SAY. See WP:RS and WP:SYNTH. Squash Racket (talk) 08:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, i don`t have the time to argue with another Hungarian nationalist. If you have a problem with Hungarian status in Romania you can`t argue with that Hungarians are not indigenous in Europe, so they can`t be in Romania either.You can`t change history. Please stick to wikpedia rules and stop making pro-hungarian "facts". iadrian (talk) 08:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I WILL stick to the rules and add back what the reference actually says. See cited rules above. Plus time to read WP:NPA too, I guess you don't see yourself as a "Romanian nationalist". Squash Racket (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well stick to it please. I don`t see nationalism here. This is like writing that Americans are indigenous in North America. This is unreal. We all know that Indians are the indigenous people in America as Romanians in Transilvania, Romania. iadrian (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Romanians' history in Transylvania is undisputed only by Romanian nationalists. Serious scholars have raised a lot of questions.

Yes, the rule says add what the reference actually says, not something else. Very simple. Squash Racket (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, "serious" Hungarian scholars. We all know the story and how it goes, even yourself. I am not here to talk about already known and proven history, please just stop making pro-Hungarian changes on wikipeda. Greetings from Timisoara, Romania. iadrian (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Romanians' history in Transylvania is undisputed only by Romanian nationalists. Serious scholars have raised a lot of questions.

Yes, the rule says add what the reference actually says, not something else. Very simple. (Don't enjoy repeating myself.) Squash Racket (talk) 08:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, even if it is disputed as you say, you can`t argue with that Hungarians are not indigenous in Europe so that should answer all your questions.Please, "serious" Hungarian scholars. We all know the story and how it goes, even yourself. I am not here to talk about already known and proven history, please just stop making pro-Hungarian changes on wikipeda. You can already find the reference you need on the article page. Greetings. (Don't enjoy repeating myself.)- me either so please stop waisting my time iadrian (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference that you added does NOT say that Hungarians are "immigrants" in Transylvania. That is original research and a false citation. In fact, even that reference mentions the Hungarian Székely tribe first and mentions Romanians only in "Medieval Transylvania".

Saying that Hungarians can't be indigenous, because another reference refers to Romanians as such is a violation of WP:SYNTH.

Regardless of the debate over the early population of Transylvania the article is about Hungarians, NOT Romanians. The reference that was removed clearly mentions the indigenous Hungarian population of Transylvania and will be added back. Squash Racket (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, i don`t have the time or the patience to argue with you. It is all in logic, think a bit before you write. Any changes made by you will be reverted unless you speak to Admin about this problem. iadrian (talk) 08:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference that you added does NOT say that Hungarians are "immigrants" in Transylvania. That is original research and a false citation. In fact, even that reference mentions the Hungarian Székely tribe first and mentions Romanians only in "Medieval Transylvania".

Saying that Hungarians can't be indigenous, because another reference refers to Romanians as such is a violation of WP:SYNTH.

Regardless of the debate over the early population of Transylvania the article is about Hungarians, NOT Romanians. The reference that was removed clearly mentions the indigenous Hungarian population of Transylvania and will be added back. Squash Racket (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, i don`t have the time or the patience to argue with you. It is all in logic, think a bit before you write. Any changes made by you will be reverted unless you speak to Admin about this problem. iadrian (talk) 08:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The reference that you added does NOT say that Hungarians are "immigrants" in Transylvania. That is original research and a false citation. In fact, even that reference mentions the Hungarian Székely tribe first and mentions Romanians only in "Medieval Transylvania".

Saying that Hungarians can't be indigenous, because another reference refers to Romanians as such is a violation of WP:SYNTH.

Regardless of the debate over the early population of Transylvania the article is about Hungarians, NOT Romanians. The reference that was removed clearly mentions the indigenous Hungarian population of Transylvania and will be added back. Do you understand? Squash Racket (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hate repeating myself, i hope it is the last time. Look, i don`t have the time or the patience to argue with you. It is all in logic, think a bit before you write. Any changes made by you will be reverted unless you speak to Admin about this problem. iadrian (talk) 08:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Romanians' history in Transylvania is undisputed only by Romanian nationalists. Serious scholars have raised a lot of questions.

Yes, the rule says add what the reference actually says, not something else. Very simple.

The reference that was removed clearly mentions the indigenous Hungarian population of Transylvania and will be added back. Squash Racket (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is hopeless. If you repeat something for a thousand times that doesn`t becoma a fact you know. I told you, Any changes made by you will be reverted unless you speak to Admin about this problem. iadrian (talk) 08:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the rule says add what the reference actually says, not something else. Very simple. See WP:RS and WP:SYNTH.

The reference that was removed clearly mentions the indigenous Hungarian population of Transylvania and will be added back. Squash Racket (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You can add the reference but you can`t change the status of Hungarian minority because there are references that says otherwise (anybody can write a book nowdays and use it as a "reference"), i can give you references that Hungarians are a sort of immigrant even in Europe. Use some logic please. iadrian (talk) 08:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned three times so far that "you don't have the time or patience" to argue here. That obviously wasn't true.

So far you haven't presented a reliable, neutral reference about the "sort of immigrant status" of Hungarians of Transylvania.

I did present a reliable reference, it was removed and one was added that doesn't say what you use it for. Squash Racket (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I will mention again, 5 second for copy\paste i have, but that is limited to, people have to work you know :). Look, i don`t have the time or the patience to argue with you. It is all in logic, think a bit before you write. Any changes made by you will be reverted unless you speak to Admin about this problem. iadrian (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned four times so far that "you don't have the time or patience" to argue here. That obviously wasn't true. So you keep copy/pasting just to be disruptive here? You don't care about the debate, that's why you don't answer my points?

I did present a reliable reference, it was removed and one was added that doesn't say what you use it for. Squash Racket (talk) 09:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course i don`t care, there should`t be any emotions here, there are pure facts. Seriously now, use some logic please. If you really wish to change something please contact Admin first. I can`t write anymore. Greetings from Timisoara, Romania. iadrian (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If you "of course don't care", then leave the project, because you are being disruptive. Admin would only ask for reliable sources and what they say, so it's not me who should ask for help.

The reference that was removed clearly mentions the indigenous Hungarian population of Transylvania and will be added back. Squash Racket (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion and i apreciate it, but please keep it to yourself. iadrian (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

What is "an opinion" here?

If you "of course don't care", then leave the project, because you are being disruptive. Admin would only ask for reliable sources and what they say, so it's not me who should ask for help.

The reference that was removed clearly mentions the indigenous Hungarian population of Transylvania and will be added back. Squash Racket (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please use some logic. I don`t care in the sens you care to spread pro-Hungarian "facts". (Don't enjoy repeating myself), That is your opinion and i apreciate it, but please keep it to yourself. iadrian (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That was incomprehensible.

If you "of course don't care", then leave the project, because you are being disruptive.

The reference that was removed clearly mentions the indigenous Hungarian population of Transylvania and will be added back. Squash Racket (talk) 09:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That is your opinion and i apreciate it, but please keep it to yourself. Seriously now, use some logic please. If you really wish to change something please contact Admin first. I can`t write anymore. Greetings from Timisoara, Romania. iadrian (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You keep mentioning "you can't write anymore", but keep on doing it. Admin would only ask for reliable sources and what they say, so it's not me who should ask for help.

Here is the reference that was removed without reason and will be added back:Patrick Heenan, Monique Lamontagne (1999). The Central and Eastern Europe Handbook. Taylor & Francis. p. 70. ISBN 9781579580896. Squash Racket (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to say that you are not going anywhere with this unless you talk to Admin first. Here is the reference that Hungarians are not even European so please use some logic. Usually you can track a nations origin by it`s language, track Hungarian please. If you google it a bit you`l find it too. I ask you to stop waisting my time and i am begging you to think a bit before you write it down. http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/magyars/ethnic-affiliations-and-origins-of-the-hungarian-people.html iadrian (talk) 09:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Gotta work. Bye. iadrian (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not me who should ask for admin help (It wasn't me who removed a reliable source while adding an irrelevant one.)

That is an unreliable source. Please use some logic and bring a reliable source this time. (I've linked WP:RS already, so I'm begging you to think a little and read the basic rules.) Squash Racket (talk) 09:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

When it`s a source that is "bad news " it is immediately an unreliable source:). Anyway, this is atleast easy to prove so there is no need saying that Hungarians are indigenous people in Romania or Moldova beacuse they are not even European. Greetings iadrian (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an unreliable source and it doesn't say anything about the indigenous population of Transylvania anyway. Squash Racket (talk) 15:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what a big mistake, it is just saying that Hungarians are not European and the Romanian province - Transilvania is in Africa so it doesn`t matter. :) As i said before, use some logic please. Greetings iadrian (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Use some logic please and read WP:RS and WP:SYNTH.

You are not convincing in any way, I will add back the reliable source (Patrick Heenan, Monique Lamontagne (1999). The Central and Eastern Europe Handbook. Taylor & Francis. p. 70. ISBN 9781579580896.) to support the statement as I said.

The current version ("immigrants") is not supported by the reference that is there and the part is tagged for a reason. Squash Racket (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, now for the last time, i don`t have the time to lose it with some Hungarian nationalist or whatever. If you try to change the status of Hungarian minority in Romania or Moldova i`l find you 1000 sources that says that Hungarians are NOT European so we will have to change a dozen of articles people like you edited so please, save me the time. I am not trying to be convincing, i am trying to be understanding but looks like with you that is hopeless. Reliable source by you, not by me, so it will be removed, only if it is some really good reference it will remain. iadrian (talk) 18:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ps: what do you do all day? Are you 24h on wiki? U so crazy with your nationalism that you are really losing time on this nonsense? iadrian (talk) 18:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA too as you support asking for an admin to read this thread.

I will add back the reliable source (Patrick Heenan, Monique Lamontagne (1999). The Central and Eastern Europe Handbook. Taylor & Francis. p. 70. ISBN 9781579580896.) to support the statement as I said.

The current version ("immigrants") is not supported by the reference that is there and the part is tagged for a reason. Squash Racket (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is funny, after all you said i attacked you. Np, i apologize if i offended you in any way. I already have a reliable source. http://mek.niif.hu/01900/01993/html/index1.html , if you need more there is a lot where that came from. :) iadrian (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks are not considered funny and you would take it really badly, if I started to do it like you do.

I couldn't find the denial of Hungarians being indigenous people in Transylvania or that they are "immigrants" there.

Romanians think that Romanians are indigenous in Transylvania based on such "sources" as the Gesta Hungarorum and "archaeological findings" of Ceausescu, so I don't understand your problem with a reliable, neutral English source claiming the same about Hungarians.

This article is about Hungarians, not Romanians, use some logic please. Squash Racket (talk) 19:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

For me it is funny beacuse you were inpolite but it doesn`t matter. As i said, i apologize if i offended you in any way. The Gesta Hungarorum which is a reliable source even if you personaly don`t think that way and Romanians don`t think that they are indigenous people, they are and there are hard evidence for that. I knew this is the problem, that is why i could not let you change this article. But as you said before to Scooter20, we are talking about Hungarians here, and i can give you hard evidence that Hungarians are not European therefore they can`t be indigenous in Transilvania or any other Romanian lands. iadrian (talk) 19:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I aggree that Hungarians can`t be immigrants in the right sens of the word because they are here for a long time, but they can`t be indigenous people either. If you are willing to find a word in the middle i would aggree on that. I don`t know what causescu did, but he certanly did`t write his own version of history. Anyway, i am not presenting references in any connection with causescu.iadrian (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Where was I impolite?

The Gesta Hungarorum is taken seriously exclusively by Romanians. That should be telling about its reliability. It is so full of mistakes it should be considered science-fiction.

No hard evidence for Romanians being indigenous in Transylvania. The first fully documented event we have from there is the Hungarian conquest. Everything else is a matter of debate. Transylvania is a "Romanian land" since 1920, let's not forget that.

You "let" me do something? I didn't ask for permission. Squash Racket (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe for Hungarian nationalist Transilvania is Romanian land since 1920, but for the rest of the world it is ancient Romanian land, let`s not forget that. No hard evidence that Hungarians are even European. You can change it , but i don`t think it will hold. I am trying to make a compromise here, if not, we can always ask for Admin`s help. iadrian (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it was "crazy Romanian nationalism" (your words) that made the Gesta Hungarorum a "reliable source" out of a collection of legends.

Let's not forget that Romania is not "the rest of the world".

The reference talks about "indigenous Hungarian population" and that's what I will use it for. And I usually don't run to Romania-related articles to correct the mistakes there, but this article is about Hungarians. Squash Racket (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, rest of the world in the real sense of the words, exept Hungary of course. ? Sorry , not mine words. Of course, but it is Romania-related. It is unreal to write that Hungarians are indigenous people in Transilvania or Moldova. I think we don`t have anything else to talk about. I am just asking a small favour if i may, before you change anything consult with Admin please, if not, it doesn`t matter. iadrian (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You said something very similar, only about Hungarians.

How about this: I add back the sourced material, but also mention in brackets that Hungarians conquered Transylvania at the end of the 9th century. That way things should be clear. Squash Racket (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you please give me an example how it would look like. iadrian (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not that I don't understand most of what you wrote there, it is still very "impolite" (as you put it) to do that. It is also against the rules. Squash Racket (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, i can translate for you if you want. I was asking for neutral opinion. If you don`t belive me, please, find somebody to translate it to you. I didn`t know that consulting is against the rules. iadrian (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Asking someone who himself openly claims he's a Romanian nationalist on his userpage is "extremely neutral". Squash Racket (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You don`t understand, i already had some disscusions with him. It doesn`t matter, if you think i was unpolite there or doing anything against the rules please be free to translate the text and ask for Admin`s opinion. iadrian (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You had some discussions with him already? So probably, maybe you know what to expect?

I don't need to ask an admin, it is not me who doesn't know the rules. Squash Racket (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Not about this, i can`t tell you the whole history, i talk to the man before and i know he can be really neutral. If you think so, but as before, it is your opinion and i would appriciate it if you would keep it to yourself. iadrian (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Stop with paranoia, and keep your opinion for yourself please. iadrian (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not Biruitorul, the problem is how you handled this. If you want a neutral opinion, you probably ask an absolutely uninvolved editor (and in English). Or you need rules for that? Common sense or "some logic" (your phrase) doesn't work? Squash Racket (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

And you were wondering how can you be unpolite. I am asking uninvolved editor, asking for other man`s opinion to see maybe i am mistaking somewhere, or maybe not. If you listened for my phrase we would end this discussion long time ago, but by you, the fact that Hungarians are not European has nothing to do with Hungaarians as indigenous people in Transilvania and Moldova. Sorry, no need for rules, maybe you should read them once. I don`t have anything else to talk about with you. Do as you please. iadrian (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You slowly realize that WP:NPA is there for a reason. You still talked about "paranoia" when I simply was talking about a problem without name-calling. So stop the whining.

WP is about what reliable references say. I offered a solution above to clear things.

You don't realize that regardless where Hungarians came from (BTW they came from Eastern Europe) nothing is proven before their arrival in Transylvania. Squash Racket (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here, so I will do so. First: "immigrant" typically implies relatively recent (say two centuries or less) departure from one's homeland, and departure to a place that is not geographically contiguous with that homeland. Thus, a Hungarian in France or England is an immigrant; one in southern Slovakia or northwestern Romania is not. Second: if we accept that Hungarians in Transylvania are immigrants, then it follows (since they form part of the same ethnos) that Hungarians in Hungary are also immigrants. Surely no one wants to take that position? - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You have a strange way realizing if someone is "whining" or not. Our conversation has no sense because you are constantly coming with pro-hungarian sources, even now, we should stop losing our time and solve this problem by consulting a third person. iadrian (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Then read what Biruitorul wrote and read my very first comment in this thread:

The article refers to recent events as "immigration" (like Hungarians in Brazil), Hungarians are autochthonous people in all territories of the Kingdom of Hungary and where they have lived for hundreds of years. Squash Racket (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Squash Racket (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bituitorul, i agree, but we can`t say that Hungarians are indigenous people in Transilvania and Moldova, or we can ? I am looking for some definition in the middle. iadrian (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the inclusion of Moldavia is a bit questionable: there are just 6681 Hungarians and Csangos in Moldavia (0.14% of the population), of whom 65% are in Bacău County. But they have been there for a long time, just like those in Transylvania. If you're asking who's "more indigenous" in Transylvania, we need some good sources for that, but I think Hungarians have been there long enough that it qualifies as their homeland too. See for instance here and thereabouts for the crucial role played by Transylvania in Hungarians' conception of who they are as a people. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to the Romanian census. The Council of Europe estimated the number of Hungarian-speakers in Moldova at 60-70000, and ethnic Hungarians at more than 200000. But here maybe we should use the official census numbers or point out that the estimations are estimations (with references). Squash Racket (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The estimates are noteworthy (and from a presumably impartial body), but usually, census data takes precedence in such cases. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but as the origin of origin of the Hungarians (Huns migrated from Central Asia) which is widely accepted, Hungarians can`t really be the indigenous people by my opinion. I know that they can`t be immigrants either, but what should they classify as? Are you saying that they should be as indigenous people? What are the Romanians then? We have the Daco-Thracian continuity that is also widely accepted that negate in a way the Hungarian status of the indigenous people. iadrian (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion agrees with yours: the ancestors of Romanians have lived there for a couple of thousand years, Hungarians and Szeklers came in about 1000-1200 years ago, etc. However, the academic literature typically considers people to be autochthonous if they've been there "long enough", and even if everyone acknowledges Hungarians originated in Central Asia, it seems to me they clearly meet the "long enough" criterion. To put this in perspective, the Afrikaners have only been in South Africa about 400 years (and they're totally different from Black Africans), but no one considers them immigrants either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I guess they can be classified as autochthonous population, however i would like it if there would be more precise word for this situation. I guess the article should be corrected with the word autochthonous.iadrian (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I added back the proper reference too. Squash Racket (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

A few questions, more or less off-topic.

1) Do you agree that Hungarians have migrated in the Carpathian Basin in the 900s AD from somwhere in Central Asia / Eastern Europe?

2) Do you agree that the ancestors of todays modern Romanians (Dacians) have lived in a territory which spanned from the River Tisa to the Black Sea long before the Hungarians arrived in Central Europe.

3) Do you agree that Romanians are descendents of Romanized Dacians which lived continuously in the Romanian lands (including Transylvania)?

4) Do you agree that even though Transylvania was a Hungarian territory for hundred of years Romanians received little or no rights despite being the majority of the population?

5) Do you think that the Treaty of Trianon was fair?

Scooter20 (talk) 21:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose, but what does this have to do with anything, and how is our opinion relevant (see WP:RS)? - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I was addressing these questions to Squash Racket. Sorry if it seems otherwise. We started the discussion about the status of Hungarians in Transylvania in the beginning of the thread. I know this questions are off topic but I am just interested in his opinion. Scooter20 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen the Ceausescu map on your userpage if that's what you're asking about.
1, Do you agree that the fact that there's no solid evidence for the presence of Dacians in Transylvania for around 1000 years (the so-called Dark ages) is kind of relevant regarding your — here — offtopic question?
2, Do you agree that Ceausescu had an awful lot of influence on Romanian historiography (see the River Tisza fantasy)?
3, Do you agree that if the Treaty of Trianon was "fair" Romanians should provide autonomy to the Székely people in Székelyland? (I was silent about full independence, but that would be around as "fair" as Trianon based on the same arguments.)
4, Do you agree that while Romanians are constantly complaining about Magyarization (which is depicted as a reaction to Habsburg Germanization by the Library of Congress) they are strangely silent about the much more effective Romanianization? (See "ancient Romanian" Nagyvárad for example).
5, Do you agree that János Hunyadi became quite a Hungarian leader despite his (at least partial) Wallachian ancestry?
There are so many offtopic questions to be answered, but this is not a forum. Squash Racket (talk) 06:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You can't answer a question with another question! When you'll answer my questions, then I'll answer yours!

After this long discussion I agree that Hungarians cannot be called immigrants in Transylvania because they lived there (even if they did so as a minority) for 1000 years.

However, the Romanians are the oldest populace in Transylvania and it should be a difference between the status of Romanians and Hungarians in Transylvania. They cannot both be indigenous!

Regarding the map on my user page, it was made by myself, not by Ceausescu.

Contrary to your belief I don't admire him. I think he, and the communism ideology were the main causes that made Romania to be many years behind Western Europe.

Scooter20 (talk) 08:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say the population of Transylvania before the Hungarian conquest is a disputed topic. But that dispute belongs on the talk page of Origin of the Romanians, not here. Squash Racket (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen definitions as short as 4 generations e.g if your great-grandfather was born in the USA you can no longer be considered an immigrant. If you take it to 200 years it would make most of current USA population immigrants. You have to admit it's pretty extrema position to even consider this it would make most people immigrants it's just a simple misunderstanding of the definition. Hobartimus (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The dispute about the Origin of the Romanians exists only for Hungarian nationalists, for the rest of the world it is widely accepted the Origin of the Romanians, to be more precise, that Romanians descend mainly from Daco-Romans, and in this case, also widely accepted that Hungarians CAME to Europe. Now if Squash Racket or anybody similar thinks different that is their personal problem. This would be the same like proving that the Earth is flat and prove it otherwise, to be more precise, things that are already proven a thousand times and because of the lack of references here on wikipedia, not in reality there is no "reliable" source because of the many not so reliable presented and manufactured to fight for some particular political goals. This is wikipedia ,a encyclopedia that anybody can edit, therefore the history can`t be taken for any serious studies.iadrian (talk) 07:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, i didn`t heard of the effects of so-called Romanization, and if it exists it can`t compare to much powerful process that is still taking place in the Balkans called Maghiarization. iadrian (talk) 08:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with iadrian!

If the Romaniazation which was done in Transylvania after 1918, was even close to being as effective as the Magyarization that was done during the Hungarian rule, there would be hardly any Hungarians left in Transylvania now.

But as you already know there are over 1.4 million Hungarians in Transylvania, about the same amount of people as it was in 1918.

In 1918, there were about 500 thousand Romanians left in Hungary after the Treaty of Trianon (east of Tisa river) but nowadays their number decreased to less than 10 thousand (concentrated around the city of Giula/Gyula). That's just an example how effective the Magyarization process is!

Scooter20 (talk) 09:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"The dispute about the Origin of the Romanians exists only for Hungarian nationalists," and "i didn`t heard of the effects of so-called Romanization, and if it exists it can`t compare to much powerful process that is still taking place in the Balkans? called Maghiarization." and "In 1918, there were about 500 thousand Romanians left in Hungary"
No comment needed on the reliability of these comments, these opinions speak for themselves... Squash Racket (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was very precise in my previous comment, if you don`t understand it, maybe you should read some history books, or you already know but you won`t admit it, of course, public or in person. I was going to answer to your comment, but i realized that we are just going to talk more and more about things that are widely known and accepted but one of us don`t want to acknowledge them, plus i was very clear in my previous comment. iadrian (talk) 12:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I answered you in my previous comment, if you don`t understand it, maybe you should read some history books, or you already know but you won`t admit it... Squash Racket (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)