User talk:Ermenrich

They are at it again

I saw you trying to stop some one trying to push far right sources they are back at it.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_war_crimes&diff=1042920479&oldid=1040413032

Alfréd Tóth

Good evening, Ermenrich!

You've reverted my edit in Mundzuk referring to WP:FRINGE. Can I ask why do you deem Alfréd Tóth as unreliable? At the bottom of his work Etymological Dictionary of Hungarian we can read about him. I think he passes the guideline.

ALFRÉD TÓTH was born in 1965 in St. Gallen (Switzerland), his native tongue is Hungarian. Received two PhD's (1989 Mathematics, University of Zurich; 1992 Philosophy, University of Stuttgart) and an MA (General and Comparative Linguistics, Finno-Ugristics and Romanistics, University of Zurich 1991). Mr. Tóth is since 2001 Professor of Mathematics (Algebraic Topology) in Tucson, Arizona. He is member of many mathematical, semiotic, cybernetic and linguistic societies and scientific board member of eight international journals. Lives in Tucson and Szombathely where his family comes from. Gyalu22 (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyone deriving Hungarian from Sumerian is fringe. Hungarian is a Uralic language and Sumerian is a language isolate with no proven connections to any other language. The genetic affiliation of Hunnish is also unknown but it is probably Turkic, not Uralic. Beyond that, Toth's "Hunnic-Hungarian Wordlist" is not published by a reputable academic publisher.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't accept this reason. Please note that before the end of communism, studies with inappropriate results were suppressed, and that recent discoveries distance Hungarian from Finno-Ugric more and more (genetic closeness and cultural closeness already disproved by MKI). It's not fringe to derive something from Sumerian if the whole Finno-Ugric kinship theory is standing only on shared vocabularies. Tóth is a linguist. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Not published in a WP:reliable source, so it doesn't matter whether Toth is a linguist or whether you disagree with the academic consensus that Hungarian is a Uralic language. You cannot add fringe sources to Wikipedia.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Quoting from Wikipedia:Fringe theories:

Reliable sources on Wikipedia may include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.

Gyalu22 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Not when they go against academic consensus. The idea that Sumerian and Hungarian are related is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that requires an extraordinarily good source, not a PDF someone uploaded.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Gyalu22, first of all, just like Ermenrich says, it is fringe. Secondly, it is against WP:DUE. You are not going to win this, I am afraid.--Berig (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The book is from the trustworthy Hungarian Electronic Library, not a random PDF. The thing that predecessors of ancient Hungarian words can be found in Sumerian is acknowledged by Finno-Ugristics. Please read this article: JSTOR 2741589.

Tóth's work is indeed not from a reputed publisher, but reliable enough. It won't overthrow the domination of academic sources. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ermenrich, Just I have a general remark about the languge thing, not about the Sumerian thing. The people in all nations are mixed over the centuries. Speakers of an Uralic language does not mean that the origin of all people in the nation is Uralic. The problem is that the Finno-Ugric theory started as a language theory then it falsely became the theory of the origin of the Hungarians. For example, the Afro-Americans are speaking English, but they did not originate from England. For example, I think we cannot determine the origin history of an Afro-American person in New York from the English language. By the way, there are only some hundred allegedly Finno-Ugric words in the Hungarian language and the connection between the both language is more fare than between the English and the Russian. Because the Hungarian language is very old, we can find similarities in many other languages as well, for example, the Hungarian language has a 10x higher word match with the Turkish language. For example, the Avars, the Pechenegs, or Cumans also became Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin, they speak a “Finno-Ugric” language, but their origin cannot be “Finno-Ugric”. Finno-Ugric name is a wrong term, according to this category, the speakers of the Ugric branch are Mansi 12,500, Khanty 31,000, and Hungarian circa 15 million speakers. It should be called the “Hungarian language family” based on the number of speakers. The Finno-Ugric theory, this origin of the Hungarian people theory, this linguistic and cultural identification forced on the Hungarians for 150 years, but today it has shrunk to a third, there is no longer a theory of origin, there is no longer a common cultural landscape. For example, Hungarians have a golden deer or a miracle deer cult (like Scythians and Huns), a flying táltos horse that eats ember (the táltos is a figure in Hungarian mythology, a person with supernatural power). The northern Finnish and Uralic folks have a bear cult. The Hungarians used blood oaths like the Scythians, the Hungarians were fearful horse archer warriors and used the same weapons as the Huns, Avars, and Scythians, while the Finnish and Uralic folks did not. The Finno-Ugric experts don't know what to do with the new international and Hungarian genetic researches, which clearly proved the Hungarian-Hun-Scythian relations that were declared several times in foreign medieval documents and all medieval Hungarian chronicles. If you check the TrueAncestry website, nowadays many people and many Hungarians make a personal DNA test, based on these results, compared with an archaeogenetic database the Hungarians have this Scythian connection that was claimed in the medieval literature, according to the recent genetic researches the Huns also were Scythians. Today the Finno-Ugric origin dogma is over. Nowadays in Hungary, there is a paradigm shift in Hungarian prehistory. In the 1960–80s, the framework of the prehistory research was based on Finno-Ugric linguistics. Nowadays Hungarian prehistory is based on a new methodology: archeology, archaeogenetics, analyzing the old sources, and reconciliation of the researches of academic disciplines. Many contemporary Hungarian historians and genetics refuse the Finno-Ugric origin theory. The new books in the schools are teaching again the Hun-Scythian-Avar origin and the Finno-Ugric version is just a theory category.

(In Hungary it is beleived by many people, even many academics, The Habsburgs invented the Finno-Ugric theory and it was forced to be the official mainstream Hungarian origin theory after the suppression of the Hungarian revolution war in 1849, this theory is only 150 years old, this theory started only as a language theory then it was falsely converted to the origin of the nation theory. The Hungarians had a lot of revolution wars against the Habsburgs, and they wanted to rule the Hungarians, and the Habsburgs also incited always the people of Central Europe each other with the strategy of “divide and conquer”. That is why the Habsburgs wanted to take the real history of the Hungarians. The Habsburg agents, Paul Hunsdorfer and Jospeh Budenz who never spoke Hungarian were placed in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and they worked in the 1860–80s to make the Finno-Ugric theory as official linguist and origin theory of the Hungarians. This theory was good during the Soviet occupation which promoted Pan-Slavism. In an occupied country, it is not expected to teach the truth, the authentic history of the occupied people, but what is imposed by the occupiers, what suits them.)

The real content is the Finno-Ugric theory, that a Scythian folk, the Mansi which used horse burials even in the 19th century, the Mansi moved to the north to the forested regions from the steppe zone in the Iron Age, they could give words to north, then these words were taken by the local fisher and hunter folks. The Finno-Ugric peoples lived in the north, there are possible connection with the Scythian peoples who lived southward, but the culture came from the south to the north and not inverse, so if the Finnish language has some similar words, it means the Finno-Ugric peoples was taken words from the Scythians in the past. OrionNimrod (talk)

Gyula22, please stop this nonsense. The idea that Sumerian and Hungarian are related is a fringe theory and does not reflect academic consensus. See Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins. These are all pushed by Hungarian nationalists who for some reason think speaking a Uralic language isn’t great enough or something. They are fringe nonsense and you aren’t adding them to Wikipedia.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Gyalu22, I see you’re already familiar with that page as you have improperly redirect Origin of the Hungarian language there. @Krakkos and Erminwin:, this Turanianist user needs watching for inserting fringe views into articles and many of his edits probably need to be undone. That redirect, for instance.—Ermenrich (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Ermenrich, you're right about that redirect, I understand the problem now, as Austronesier explained it. I didn't know that Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins doesn't include the Finno-Ugric theory because § The "Ugric–Turkic War" described it too. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the JSTOR article? Gyalu22 (talk) 12:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gyalu22: History is a complex thing. Linguistic history is part of that jigsaw puzzle. Operating with labels such as "Finno-Ugric" to denote ethnic identity is a fallacy rooted in the 19th century. This fallacy persists to the present day, but only in ideology-driven pseudoscience. And it is outright silly to cite cultural and anthropological evidence to support or devalidate linguistic hypotheses. Hungarian is firmly established as a member of the Uralic languages, period. Nevertheless, it has absorbed many features from Turkic and Slavic languages. This is a direct consequence of the diverse origins of the Uralic-speaking Magyar elite that supplanted itself on a local Central European population.

Any assumption of Sumerian links to Hungarian or to the Uralic languages as a whole remains tenuous, and the article by Fodor which you have linked to above says exactly that. "The camp of the partisans of the Sumerian ideology" (as Fodor calls them) simply have failed to produce solid evidence. A more recent attempt (without any Hun-Hungarian axe to grind) to trace Sumerian to Proto-Uralic by the Assyriologist Simo Parpola[1] is an interesting step towards a non-ideological inspection of the data, but has been criticized as speculative and methodologically problematic in peer reviews. In short, all the Sumerian-Hungarian (or Sumerian-Uralic) stuff remains fringe. –Austronesier (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Just please let me clarify I am not a "partisan of the Sumerian ideology", and I'm not trying to deny the Uralic-Hungarian connection, but trying to give more scope to the new direction of the study of history. The dispute came from my mistake of overpresenting. I acknowledge that these investigations aren't competent yet. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Noted. But you must agree that saying things like "The Habsburgs invented the Finno-Ugric theory" (and a few other things in your longish post above) strongly contributes to such misunderstandings (I hope it is just that)—and I have to admit that they have not been fully dispelled by this clarification. –Austronesier (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Austronesier, I joined to the conversation just a general feedback relating the language and the people, I commented that part as just simple talking, but I see Wikipedia did not sign my reply, so I did it manual. As a Hungarian I can confirm that these views are very general in Hungary, nowadays in Hungary, there is a paradigm shift in Hungarian prehistory. In the 1960–80s, the framework of the prehistory research was based on Finno-Ugric linguistics. Nowadays Hungarian prehistory is based on a new methodology: archeology, archaeogenetics, analyzing the old sources, and reconciliation of the researches of academic disciplines. There are a lot of new genetic researches like this academic source: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00732-1 OrionNimrod (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh it was you then. In this case, my most sincere apologies to User:Gyalu22.

There hasn't really been a paradigm shift in scholarship. The complex origins of Hungarian prehistory have been known to linguists, archaeologists and historians for ages. The real paradigm shift only happens in public identity-seeking. Most scholars hate it when their research is co-opted in such a manner. –Austronesier (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

By the way I am talking about history, not about the language, just my inicial comment was that I think language classification and a history of a people could be not the same. Of course, this needs time, but I am reading and checking always the latest researches of academic disciplines and I am listening lot of conferences and the presentation of historians, genetics, etc regarding the contemporary things, just check out my Current Biology link above. And also international researches matches with these things (for example not only the Hungarian scholars are making excavations and genetic studies in Hun cemeteries, for example https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00439-020-02209-4, and https://indo-european.eu/2020/08/xiongnu-ancestry-connects-huns-avars-to-scytho-siberians/). And I can see the changing, many 21st century scholars say these things what I mentioned, there are many already, and in future it will be a lot of publication and supervision of outdated historical views regarding the early medieaval and prehistory of Hungarians. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

No one disputes that the Hungarians came from the Eurasian steppe and would thus have genetic connections to other people from that area. Where these studies (mostly by Hungarians) go awry is when they suggest that somehow suggests "continuity" (whatever that means) between the Huns and the Hungarians. Any connection is very slight, as the genetic results show if you actually look at the percentages. Much of this research is related to the right-wing Orban government and should be treated cautiously: Gyalu claims that results "used to be" suppressed, and yet it was Orban who kicked out the Central European University, which publishes books that are critical of Turanianist approaches.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed the situation is quite complicated, the Hungarian conquerors also mixed with the locals, there is a genetic continuity from the Bronze Age, continuous migration of the steppe folks from east to the Carpathian Basin according to the genetic studies. Not only the modern studies say the similar things, there are lot of historian works from the early and late 20th century, the years of the 2000s, which research the similar things, and I think the genetics is math, an exact science. I also do not think that the more than 1000 years old foreign German, Byzantine, Italian, etc sources would be "Hungarian nationalist" which wrote clearly "Hungarians = Avars = Huns = Scythians", Anglo-Saxon map from 1040 write "Hunorum gens" (Hun race) to Hungary. But of couse this is more complicated. If you check yourself the MyTrueAncestry website, many Hungarians and other people make a personal DNA test, compared with an archaeogenetic database the Hungarians has a significant Scythian ancestry, I think 10-20 years later we will be more smarter when we have much more DNA. In that Current Biology study, the Hungarian conquerors had approx 30% Hun + 30% Sarmatian + 30% Ugric component, according to the study, the proto-Hungarians and Huns admixed around 300, later the old Hungarians integrated more additional Huns during their way on the steppe zone. The genetic studies proved the Hun, the Avar, and the Hungarian populations were present during the centuries together in that huge steppe zone, and genetic continuity was detected between them, that is a kinship relationship can be demonstrated. A significant part of the Hungarian conqueror elite showed themselves to be of Hun or Avar descent, with varying degrees of Iranian (Alan) and local admixture. The western end of the Eurasian steppe zone is the Carpathian Basin, and the eastern end is the Ordos region. This 8000 km long area was the ancient homeland of the horse archer Scythian folks, they were a tribal confederation, the Hungarian tribes were among them. The name of the tribal confederation always came from the name of the strongest leading tribe, who was raised on the shield, who was the elected leader among them. The Huns were also not only Huns. There were many steppe folks also (Iazyges for example) in the Carpathian Basin, but it called "Magyar-country" in Hungarian language because Árpád was raised on the shield from the Megyer tribe, and this tribe and he was the elected leader. But it was more tribes always in the Carpathian Basin. OrionNimrod (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

First, I don't know why I can't contradict Orbán. You say it like it would be a crime in Hungary.

Second, you use "Turanianist" similar to the Nazi card. I read that Turanism is the want of a Eurasian unification or close cooperation. I don't know how did you figure that out or why do you want to know others' personal views, but indeed I think cooperation between nations (see the excavation of the Ar Gunt cemetery in Mongolia by the MKI) is good, however, it is far from truth that we're so similar that we could unify. Gyalu22 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ermenrich, Austronesier, and Krakkos: etc.:

Gyalu22:

you use "Turanianist" similar to the Nazi card. I read that Turanism is the want of a Eurasian unification or close cooperation. I don't know how did you figure that out or why do you want to know others' personal views, but indeed I think cooperation between nations (see the excavation of the Ar Gunt cemetery in Mongolia by the MKI) is good, however, it is far from truth that we're so similar that we could unify.

I can already tell from Gyalu22's deliberate and gross mischaracterization of Turanism to whitewash it that Gyalu22 evidently acts in bad faith. Erminwin (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi Erminwin. I didn't mischaracterize Turanism in any way, it means cultural and political movement proclaiming the need for close cooperation or political unification between peoples who are claimed to have special cultural, linguistical or ethnical relation and to originate from Inner Asia and Central Asia according to the article. I'm not a supporter of that (nor ever shown any signs of being so), so please don't give me phrases like that and assume bad faith in the wake of that. Apologies for the previous misunderstanding, I mixed your name with Ermenrich's. Gyalu22 (talk) 11:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gyalu22:: Even so, I won't take Turanists' claim for just "close cooperation or political unification" at face value, given (1) many Turanists' pseudo-scientific cherry-pickings of evidence to support their pre-conceived notions, geopolitical and racial agendae, and horrendous acts (in the Ottoman Empire's case: e.g. the Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide; in Turkey's & Republic of Azerbaijan's case: falsification of history). To me at least, it's like taking at face value, out of willful ignorance, the "Heritage not Hate" lie peddled by bad-faith-acting racists displaying the Confederate battle flags.Erminwin (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no reason the include such ridiculous "academic" (or, even, pseudo-academic) standpoints, which strengthens the nonsense Sumerian Hungarian language affinity. In any article (except of course Alternative theories of Hungarian language origins). Anyway, none of academics consider "The Habsburgs invented the Finno-Ugric theory and it was forced to be the official mainstream Hungarian origin theory after the suppression of the Hungarian revolution war in 1849". Most of the pro-Finno-Ugric linguists lived long before the 1848 Revolution (János Sajnovics or Antal Reguly). --Norden1990 (talk) 08:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Karl der Große

Just wanted to make you aware that the page on Charlemagne is a real mess. I've been too busy to deal with it for some time, but it remains on my radar. Es ist doch beschämend, dass eine Wiki-Seite über eine Person seiner historischen Bedeutung so lange vernachlässigt wurde. If you are so inclined -- once you've got Germanic paganism under control -- take a look at it. Obenritter (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Hunnic language

• "The Hunnic language cannot be classified at present,[4][5] but due to the origin of these proper names it has been compared mainly with Turkic, Mongolic and Yeniseian languages,[5][6][7] with a majority of scholars supporting Turkic.(Savelyev, Jeong)"

Does the Savelyev/Jeong reference support the statement "a majority of scholars support Turkic" since there is no page number given for the reference? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Kansas Bear if my memory serves correctly they do. I think the publication is freely viewable online so you should be able to double check.—Ermenrich (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

What is this?

By user Giray Altay on Talk:Attilid_dynasty, part of this edit:

it seems you [Erminwin] are only interested in talking about me [Giray Altay] in the context of making arguments ad personam, on other pages, and without pinging me [Giray Altay] 1, 2, 3

Is this WP:HOUND?Erminwin (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Erminwin, unless he’s following you around I don’t think it counts as hounding. It certainly looks like battleground though ( and the thing about pinging is frankly odd).—Ermenrich (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)