Talk:Hungary

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries

On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things:

• whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
• which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:13 (UTC)

You know, this could go to FA if people would stop arguing about terminology

This article, as one would expect from an important article about a country, could be easily taken to FA with the consensus and hard work of a lot of editors.

It is continually ruined by infighting about whether Magyar is right and Hungarian, and which date it is founded, and when King Stephen was crowned. Next we will have a big argument on where the marls in Széchenyi belong, a hot topic in Hungary so I am led to believe, but look: this is English Wikipedia and English writers don't use diacritical marks, so from the point of view of the English language Wikipedia it doesn't matter, just choose one and stick to it. It's more ridiculous to see Széchenyi Chain Bridge with one way of orthography and National Széchényi Library with another. I do understand there is disagreement there, the aim is to achieve consensus on which way it should be written, in the English Wikipedia.

Sources on each side try to state their case, which is useful and constructive (although quoting Hungarian sources that say Magyar is not; I would have taken it as read that in English the language is called "Hungarian" and in Hungary it is called "Magyar", but then I am only a literate Englishman married to a literate Hungarian, and the facts that the topic is called Hungarian language and the ISO-639 code is "hu" and so on, and on cars it is "H" and whatever other examples will not rid the idea that English-speaking people call it Hungarian, and few know the word "Magyar" and that it is generally used only as a noun indicating ethnicity).

So, stop the silly edit wars and then get this to FA. I've been reviewing a few GA articles the last few days, and this would quick-fail because of the edit wars. Meanwhile, people like me and my partner are improving Hungarian coverage on lots of subsidiary articles but we dare not approach more-encompassing topics because of the edit wars. That is to admit, I suppose, we edit by stealth in building a good base for the small articles we develop, then change the next up in the hierarchy, and so on. So at the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 we have translated all the battles and so on, from HU:WP and FR:WP and DE:WP (that's not synthesis, by the way) and done everything right there. We dare not touch the main article Hungarian Revolution of 1848 or major biographies on people like Lajos Kossuth since we know that will just be reverted or edit warred over, and we don't care, we'll carry on slowly translating biographical and geographical and historical articles and let the edit wars continue on pages like this. The thing that you're missing: These pages are much more important, and the edit wars hurt them.

A note to the good editor who has revised the population figures lately on this and other : There is {{Infobox Hungarian settlement}}, which is probably not worth using here now, but it documents other templates such as {{ksh url}} which links quickly to the KSH. It's only useful in that it gives you what might be a standard form. Unfortunately neither are perfect because there are limitations in the Wikimedia software for injecting stuff into URL links. But nice work there, at least one editor noticed it.

Si Trew (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Article state

This article is in a very mediocre state, so I de-classed it to the "C" quality level. I especially speak about the History chapter. These are the points I've noticed so far:

• Too many images, many of them added just for the sake to add images
• Numerous format errors against WP:Manual of Style
• Numerous parts having no strict relevance. For example, I've just removed the subchapter dealing with "important members of the Bela dynasty" (why to put them here? There's enough information about them in their article, and anyway it'd be more proper in History of Hungary).

I wait for opininions. Ciao and good work.--'''Attilios''' (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Bela dynasty? Where is it? I've never heard about Bela dynasty —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Genetics

Okay, its 1% here, 11% there. So N among Hungarians is between 1 and 11% (may I add that often times genetic studies will only take samples from one part of the country, or only from cities and not rural areas, etc.?). But what Stears said is still wrong. None of the surrounding nations of Hungary has ANY substantial amount of N at all- if you look on the y-chromosome haplogroups per ethnic group page, there is pretty much NO N whatsoever among Romanians, Slovaks, Rusyns, Croats, Serbs, Slovenes or Germans. So that is incorrect.

Second, I believe 2006 is QUITE modern, thank you.

Furthermore, N is not attributed to Balto-Slavic groups. Baltic groups have substantial amounts of it because of previous Finnic settlement in the regions. N among Russians is only among Northern Russians (northern being the north of "Old Russia", i.e. Arkhangelsk, Karelia, etc.). So, the statement that Stears left on my talk page, "However, majority of slavic nations had serious finno-ugoric genes.", is just incorrect, as it is only a number of Russified Finnic peoples who have "Finno-Ugric" (no o between the g and r) genes.

With that being said, I am just going to delete the part on the page about the Hungarians not being descended from the Medieval Magyars, as the fact is that WE DON'T REALLY KNOW. It is quite possible that they could be anyways, as most historians affirm that the Pannonian plane was largely unoccupied at the point they reached it. Many people have said genetic tests based on the Y are not always correct for finding descent, especially since Y-haplogroup only shows the male side. Furthermore, Hungary was variously flooded with Slovak, German, Romanian and Serb migrants throughout the years, many of whom have been assimilated. It is widely thought that the Bashkirs were closely related to the original Magyars, even called "two branches of the same nation" (before their linguistic Turkification)- and they only have 2.3% y-chromosome haplogroup N. Considering the German, Jewish, Slovak, Serb and Romanian influence on the Hungarian genome, they could easily still be descended from the original Magyars- yes, genetically. --Yalens (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! With all the edit warring going on, I was hoping someone who knows a lot about the subject would help decipher what should be left in the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 data, all modern (2007 2008 2009 2010) publications shows that many Slavic countries have higher ratio of Finno-Ugric Y and mt DNA haplogroups than Hungary. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.164.43 (talk) 14:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Biological anthropology shows greater similarity between Slavic and the eastern people. Forexample: flatter face structure, wide slavic face etc. In a comparison between Hungarians and surrounding Slavs (Ukraine Slovakia Serbia), the Hungarians have lighter average pigmentation (hair eye skin colour) and larger average stature than surrounding Slavs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.164.43 (talk) 15:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all you should follow normal commenting rules and indent your comments if you are replying.

Second, your analysis of the source is faulty. This source is reporting presence not of N, but specifically of N1C1. However, even being so, the source you gave, supports my analysis and not yours. For presence of N1c1, on this website you have given yourself, it says the following, and I may note that it is doing it by COUNTRY and not by people. I have listed what the chart said for Hungary and all the countries surrounding it.

[blockquote]

Hungary is 1% N1c1
Slovakia and Austria are both 0.5% N1c1
Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Poland are aaaaall 0% N1c1
Slovenia is not listed
And, okay, fine, Ukraine has 2% N1c1 (but may I add it also has 5% Q, usually associated with Asiatic populations as well?)

[/blockquote]

So, from this, pretty much my stance is supported, even though this one reference gives a much lower N value (1% versus 10-11%) for Hungarians than our other source. Even the 0.5% in Slovakia and Austria could be actually that the HUNGARIANS in those countries were tested. Finally, dealing with Ukraine, I may add that it has a large number of Turkic placenames, not to mention Crimean Tatars, which are here counted as part of the Ukraine sample. None of this renders it impossible that Hungary has a considerable Magyar contribution to its genetic makeup. I do not deny that there are other strong influences- perhaps by the original Celtic population of the region, by Slavs, by the pre-Indo-Europeans, by Roman migrants, and so on. Perhaps Hungarians aren't even primarily descended from Magyars. The other test says 10-11%, this one says 1%. Bashkirs, meanwhile, are between 2.3% and 17%. In any case, nothing changes the fact that Magyars could have made a substantial contribution to the Hungarian people.--Yalens (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

czech people contained more than 1,5 percent Finno-Ugric. Again, there aren't any modern (2007-2008-2009-2010) scientific researches which are supporting the 10-11% fantastic fantasy ratios.

And don't forget Haplogroup Q, which is central Asian, it is higher in most slavic nation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.164.43 (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please use proper indentation. In any case, YOUR SOURCE says 0.5% for Czechs (who don't even border Hungarians really, I put Poles in just as a Slavic people). Second of all, I fail to see how 2006 isn't modern. That's simply absurd, and there is no way around it. Third, Haplogroup Q is insignificant, as it is not linked primarily to Ugric people- the Bashkirs also have 0%. It is Central Asian, and with a small bit of it among Turkic peoples, NOT Ugric peoples. Fourth, you are a sockpuppet, as we all know. Stears555 is banned, and your IP may be banned if you keep editing. --Yalens (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Serbs and romanians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.164.43 (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Population genetics is similar to computer technology. A 4-5 years old article is obsolete. Again all modern genetic sources researches deny the Finno-Ugrian language based origin-theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.107.119 (talk) 11:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The eastern slavs have serious mongoloid face forms. The vast majority balkan people have turkic look, with the typical average dark pigmentetions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.107.119 (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Genetic relations of European nations.jpg

Genetic kinships of European nations. Hungarians are in yellow (HU)

Slovaks have the highest ratio (3%) of haplogroup M (Mongolid) in Europe . Hungarians have 0% —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadruplum (talk • contribs) 11:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Assistance needed with the Eastern Europe article

The Eastern Europe article is fraught with errors, mislabels and slanted facts as if much of it was written by ultraconservatives during the Cold War from an ethnocentric position. If you agree with that Hungary is a Central European state rather than a Soviet satellite, please assist in rewording/correcting the article lead and body. Gregorik (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Subjective language invoking national prejudice

The History section on the Ottoman wars mentions "anti-Habsburg /i.e. anti-Austrian/ . . . uprisings". "Anti-Habsburg" and "anti-Austrian" are two very different things. For whatever reason, I'm unable to edit the article, but I would urge someone who can to remove "/i.e. anti-Austrian/"