Talk:Hungarians

Otto of Freising

The quote is too funny not to include it :)) Tarabostes (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Folklore and Landscape - Image gallery

I am not sure if this pictures are appropriate here, since this places are not in Hungary and some of them are constructed/acquired by non-Hungarians.

• Bojnice Castle, in Slovakia - In Slovakia.
• St. Michael's Church, Cluj-Napoca - In Romania
• Gothic-Renaissance Hunyad Castle, Hunedoara, Romania - In Romania and constructed by a Romanian origin nobility
• Gothic church of Košice, Slovakia - in Slovakia
• Rimetea, majoritary Hungarian village in Transylvania, Romania - In Romania and a typical village. Should we add all other 100000 billion villages with Hungarian majority too?
• A Székely village in Covasna County, Romania - In Romania, same reason as at Rimetea.
• Typical Hungarian Church in Văleni, Romania - In Romania, same reason as at Rimetea, only we add all Hungarian Churches?

It is not something special that is associated only with the Hungarian people. This pictures represents various buildings and I am not sure if they should be outside of their country of origin articles.Adrian (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Like it or not, these buildings are heritages of the Hungarian culture. And it is uncertain that the Hunyadi family was of Vlach origin.--Norden1990 (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• "these buildings are heritages of the Hungarian culture" - this article is about the Hungarian people, not about Culture of Hungary
• Some of these pictures are much more appropriate for other articles (Kingdom of Hungary, Gothic architecture, etc). St. Michael's Church, Corvin Castle or Bojnice Castle are not representative for the Hungarian people, the only connection is that those buildings were raised by the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. But I am not against A Székely village in Covasna County, Romania or Rimetea, majoritary Hungarian village in Transylvania, Romania.
• Like it or not, the mainstream theory is that Hunyadi family was of Vlach origin Electrifier1999 (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Like it or not, it is mainstream theory in Romania. But even if that were so, it is irrelevant. But I don't argue with a chauvinistic sockpuppet. Welcome back, Iaaasi :) --Norden1990 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Norden please keep your personal opinion for yourself, we have academics claiming facts and by this Hunyad family was a Romanian origin nobility([1] - did`t know that Britannica is a Romanian encyclopedia) - what you or I think is irrelevant.

I am sorry, but I don`t see any arguments in your comment why should this article contain this pictures except "like it or not" which isn`t really an argument. So I guess we add ALL churches build under Hungarian administration? All villages in the world with Hungarian majority? Why only Gothic church of Košice, Slovakia? Why only Rimetea, majoritary Hungarian village in Transylvania, Romania??? There is nothing special about this places that is attributed only to the Hungarian people. It doesn`t make sense.Adrian (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Also I don`t see any similar example of this kind on Serbs (have a lot of places inhabited by them in Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and yet not a singe image of them here), Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Germans, Italians, Slovenes, Austrians, Ukrainians, French people.. you name it... on any of this articles I can`t find images of places outside that country, I don`t see why should we have it here? Except if it is something special, that is attributed only to the Hungarians. Instead of this strange pictures maybe this gallery should contain pictures about known Hungarian people like on Macedonians (ethnic group) article. Adrian (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Your source said: "János was of Walachian (a region now in Romania) ancestry." Not Romanian or Vlach. for example, the family may also be Cuman origin. But that's not the point, János Hunyadi, who built the castle, was a Hungarian politician and soldier who fought for Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

He might be Spanish by you...I don`t care, it is important what sources say and the majority of them support his Romanian origin. Saying that this is only a "theory" in Romania is ridiculous. I for example don`t live in Romania and the books used in schools here state the same. True, he was a Hungarian soldier who fought for Christianity if I understood it well and then for Hungary. Adrian (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what you care. Hunyadi's origin is not proven, there are several theories. The Romanian origin is only one of them. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, only what sources say and they state that Hunyadi's is of Romanian origin (mainstream theory accepted everywhere and accepted in the academic community). Minority views exists of course but as a minority theory it can`t compare to the mainstream(they are minority theories for a reason).Adrian (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Subsection - Folklore and Landscape - Image gallery

Guys, fats are stubborn things. These are part of the Hungarian culture and people. You cannot take away pages from the book. Csendesmark (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don`t call a legitimate edit as vandalism. I will copy my comment in case you missed it.

I don`t see any similar example of this kind on Serbs (have a lot of places inhabited by them in Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and yet not a singe image of them here), Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Germans, Italians, Slovenes, Austrians, Ukrainians, French people.. you name it... on any of this articles I can`t find images of places outside that country, I don`t see why should we have it here? Except if it is something special, that is attributed only to the Hungarians. Instead of this strange pictures maybe this gallery should contain pictures about known Hungarian people like on Macedonians (ethnic group) article. Adrian (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This article isn't about John Hunyadi's roots, or the nations you listed bellow. Csendesmark (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to participate, please read this discussion. The Huniade "case" is not the problem. The images are. Please study the discussion before engaging in blind reverts.Adrian (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to argue that the article is rather image heavy in its current state. On the other hand it is worth having at least some recognition that the Hungarian people have historically spread outside the boarders of modern Hungary. I would suggest trimming the Folklore and Landscape section down to about say 8 images one of which should be outside modern Hungary.©Geni 23:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have left images that are specific to the Hungarian people and are outside Hungary, ex: Voivodina Hungarians women's national costume; Csárdás folk dance in Skorenovac, Vojvodina, Serbia; Kalotaszeg folk Costume in Transylvania, Romania; which actually represent the Hungarian people. Adrian (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

These images are all connected to the culture of the Hungarian people, so they have the right to be in the article for illustrative purposes. They were removed without a consensus. For example: St. Elisabeth Cathedral in Košice is dedicated to Elisabeth of Hungary and it is the burial place of the Hungarian national hero Francis II Rákóczi. Or: St. Michael's Church (Cluj-Napoca) is also strongly connected to the Hungarian culture, as there were more than 50 Hungarian diets held in that church and it was the place where Isabella, Queen consort of Hungary, gave the Holy Crown of Hungary to Habsburg Ferdinand. Or the Gothic-Renaissance Hunyad Castle (Hunedoara) also has an important part in the Hungarian Culture, as it was the home of the Hungarian Hunyadi family, to which family also Matthias Corvinus (one of the most popular and successful kings of Hungary) belonged, etc. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

PS: Please, note that it does not mean that these places cannot be connected to other nations, too. For example, it may well be that the Hunyadi family indeed had Vlach ancestry (but, e.g., Matthias Corvinus's mother was ethnic Hungarian). This, of course, does not contradict the fact that the family was a Hungarian noble family and was active in the Kingdom of Hungary, fought for Hungary, contributed to the Hungarian culture (cf. Matthias Corvinus and the Renaissance), therefore, strongly connected to the Hungarian people. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

PS2: For the same reason and because many English sources use their Hungarian names, I do not see why we should not provide the Hungarian names of these places, as well, since this article is a highly Hungarian related article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

This images may be connected to the Hungarian people but if they have the right to be in the article I would`t say. They were removed because the vast majority of examples say otherwise.

1) As it was stated, this image gallery is heavy, it should contain less images.

2) The sites like St. Elisabeth Cathedral in Košice and St. Michael's Church (Cluj-Napoca) I would support in some manner to be present in the article because of the historical facts you presented (But that is not ok according to the other examples), as for the Gothic-Renaissance Hunyad Castle (Hunedoara) I do not simply because it is controversial and can be used for POV pushing. All the info about the castle can be found on it`s article, I think that is more than enough.

3) The article is about Hungarian people, and this images can be used as POV pushing because I compared all other articles on wikipedia about ethnic groups and none of them contained images of random places outside that country. Ex: (Serbs (have a lot of places inhabited by them in Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and yet not a singe image of them here), Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Germans, Italians, Slovenes, Austrians, Ukrainians, French people, Macedonians (ethnic group).. you name it...). I don`t see why should we have it here? Except if it is something special, that is attributed only to the Hungarian people. As the folklore and traditions which images I have left on the article.

4) All other nations do not have this kind of pictures outside their country, take for example the first nation only, the Serbs. They are a constituent nation in Bosnia, they have a Republika Srpska and no images of places outside Serbia? Don`t you see anything strange here in comparison to the Hungarian people article? They have a big part of national heritage, UNESCO sites on Kosovo and yet not a single picture on the article. I think that the Serbs are one of the people with the most bigger diaspora and not a singe image of random places of them on the article?

4.1) Take a look at Gračanica monastery, it was declared Monument of Culture of Exceptional Importance in 1990, and it is protected by Republic of Serbia, and on 13 July 2006 it was placed on UNESCO's World Heritage List, also closely related to various Serbian Kings, nobility, Patriarchs - and yet no picture of it on the Serbs article?

5) Also here on the article, on the Hungarian people, the section "Folklore and Landscape" - landscape of Hungary? Or Hungarian people? I don`t see any Hungarian people on those images. This is also very misleading. Since when is Kosice, Cluj-Napoca, or whatever place mentioned in Hungary?

6) If you notice, there were some random places added in the gallery, for example: Rimetea, majoritary Hungarian village in Transylvania, Romania. How can you explain adding random places to the gallery? How to explain for example the addition of one Hungarian village and not the other? What makes one special from another? Should we add all other 100000 billion villages with Hungarian majority too? Why only this village? What is on this image so special to the Hungarian people? I see nothing special there, except some trees and a couple of houses that can be build by any ethnic group. Nothing to distinct then from all the others, something special only to the Hungarian people.

7) Answer to first PS: It may be connected to other nations as well but even there you don`t notice this pictures on that nation`s articles...

8) Answer to PS2, if you mean the addition of alternative place-names in the description I think that is a very bad idea(when talking about present day usage), because almost always that is used for POV pushing and as we have alternative names in the articles, there is no need to force them here, we simply use that article name(that is why that article name exists, also there is a wiki rule about the usage of the official name). Anyone who is interested about the Hungarian version name of that place, or any other language, they can find that info in the article.

9) I forgot to mention that many, if not all of them don`t even have pictures of buildings on their nations`s articles, another question, why should we have it here then? Example: No buildings, even from Germany, on Germans article.

10) If you take a look at edit history, you can notice that others think this image gallery is wrong [2], [3] (note that we have 3 images outside Hungary now), [4], and this gallery was initially introduced by anonymous IP user [5] without any consensus. Adrian (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have much to add to Iadrian yu's thoughtful remarks, except for two observations:
  • Wikipedia is not a children's book, which is what row upon row upon row of images make it look like. Yes, images are nice if they serve a purpose, but after a while, they become distracting. I advise participants to look over WP:IG for the rules on how galleries are supposed to work.
  • If we really want to see what the standard is, why not look at some ethnic group Featured Articles? There aren't many, but I don't see any galleries in Tamil people, Toraja or Taiwanese aborigines. Same with Good Articles like Chinese Indonesians, Cornish people, Greeks, Igbo people, Jews, Sri Lankan Tamil people, Canadians - the list goes on.
• In sum, it seems both the guidelines and the practice elsewhere on the project indicate the gallery should go. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, we could rearrange the gallery to contain only(like this user suggested [6]) a few pictures like on all examples, (5-6 images), but how to decide what images are the most appropriate? According to general practice I see no images outside that country, but I would keep at least one of the folklore images (Voivodina Hungarians women's national costume, Csárdás folk dance in Skorenovac, Vojvodina, Serbia and Kalotaszeg folk Costume in Transylvania, Romania)? I noticed that one uninvolved user said it should contain 8 images, from which one should be outside Hungary [7]. Maybe some kind of a vote on the talk page so everyone can vote which images out of this gallery would remain? Adrian (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I was asked by an IP editor to comment here. The subsection as it is now doesn't give a good information to a reader. It is just a random collection of images lacking sufficient explanation why are those places and traditions important for Hungarian culture. I suggest you to compile a brief overview describing the main features of Hungarian folklore and landscape. It should be mentioned that the Hungarian cultural influence stretched beyond the borders of today's state. I agree with User:Geni and User:Biruitorul, the image gallery should be reduced, it should show mainly places and traditions in Hungary + one example outside modern Hungary. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As the first version I have made 8+2 gallery, 8 images from Hungary and 2 outside. As for the edit summary I used, I hope it is noticeable that I made a mistake Gallery repair according to WP:GI, general practice and talk page of the article, I used 8+2 formula, explanation on the talk page - I meant WP:IG. Adrian (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I was also asked to comment here, and although I don't have too much to add, I agree that they should be removed (or at least heavily reduced). They are mostly pictures of buildings, which would fit in an architecture article but not an ethnicity article. The above comment that loads of buildings pictures aren't in other ethnic articles is also valid. I think if readers are really curious what Hungarian buildings look like they can browse on Wikimedia. Brutannica (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian vs. Magyar

"The name "Hungarian" has also a wider meaning, as it once referred to all inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary irrespective of their ethnicity." It is totally wrong. With all respect, Hungarian and Magyar are totally the same thing. It's like German and Deutsch. If you would say that not all Germans are Deutsch you will end up at an asylum. When they going abroad, the Occitans are French and the Saxons are Germans. Once (like in the 16th century AD) when a wallachian from Transylvania went abroad he defined himself as for example "Ioan from Transylvania" or "Ioan from Castrum Sex (Segesvár or Sighisoara)" and not as "Ioan from Hungary although not a Magyar one.". If this wider meaning thing is true, than it is true for all countries and for all ages. Like the name "American" has also a wider meaning...etc. If this is the case than it is totally useless to mention it in every article which has a hungarian subject. If this wider meaning thing is not true then it is just another, very nationalist way to try to anihilate the Hungarians from the Eastern European history. Please concern this opinion, and do not start a kick the hungarian competition out of it. 88.132.185.3 (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Later influences

"Vlachs (Romanians) and Slavs have lived together and blended with Magyars since early medieval times." There is got to be a better way to describe the assimilation than this. Okay, we are Eastern Europeans, but not horses for god's sake.88.132.185.3 (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

In my opinion, the style of the highlighted Hungarians should be changed. Currently, they are displayed in a single picture, but the table format used, for example, in the articles about Hungarian Americans or Croats looks much more professional. If I have time, I will replace the picture with such a table (if there are no objections about that). This would also allow us to rethink the list of highlighted personalities. If you have suggestions (e.g., about who should be included in the table), please, let me know. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

2011 Census

There are two data about nationality/ethnicity in the 2011 Census. One of them is called "Nemzetiség" (nationality/ethnicity), while the other one is "Nemzetiséghez tartozó" (belonging to a nationality/ethnicity). The number of people who declared themselves Hungarian in 2011 was 8,314,029 according to the first category, while 8,504,492 according to the second. The difference between the two data (according to the description on page 21 of the offical result [8]) is that it was possible to declare *multiple* affiliations. Therefore, the difference in the two numbers can be explained by those who not only declared Hungarian as their nationality/ethnicity, but other(s), as well (e.g., Hungarian and German, or Hungarian and Gypsy, etc.). Therefore, in my opinion, in this article it is more appropriate to use the number 8,504,492 (as this is the number of people who declared that they belong to Hungarians, too), but we can mention the other data, as well, by making an appropriate note. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: About the total number of Hungarians in the world: I do not see any reason to change the estimate, as I guess nobody claims that 1.3 million Hungarians miraculously disappeared from the world in 10 years. If so, please, bring some sources, instead of doing original reserach. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Geographic extent

Medieval Hungary controlled more territory than medieval France....

"Medieval" is a broad term, and no description is offered of "Medieval" Hungary's extent. This statement should be illustrated with a map showing the comparative territories of France and Hungary at a given time. Sca (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Population

... the population of medieval Hungary was the third largest of any country in Europe.

What was the population of "Medieval" Hungary, when? How did it compare with "Medieval" countries of Europe? Source? Sca (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Tauszik

"Tauszik observed that a 5% group of the Hungarians, widely distributed throughout the country, featured the traits of the Mongoloid subspecies, however there is no precise answer how this characteristic got into the Hungarian population"

I have already corrected the sentence in accordance with its source, but, could anybody explain me why we have to cite Tauszik at "Pre-4th century AD" section? Fakirbakir (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I have removed it. It is not relevant there. Moreover, modern genetic researches do not support this 5 percent. [9].Fakirbakir (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

title

I happened to notice that this article isn't named Hungarians, but that term does redirect here and it's used in the lead section. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any reason not to have this article at "Hungarians".

Looking at Talk:Hungarian people/Archive 1, back in 2006, there was a couple of requested moves, one of which said that this should be done, but was fairly summarily rejected because of some issues - unclean hands? In the history of the Hungarians article I can see that a user tried to do this in 2011, but was rejected because the admin thought this wouldn't be an uncontroversial move. Another user still wanted to disambiguate the term with Natio Hungarica, but that was in turn reverted. So the water appears a bit muddy, but not based on the Wikipedia policies that are actually relevant, rather on user behavior, which should be irrelevant.

Looking at a Google Books searches for "Hungarians" and "Hungarian people", I see zero sign of a controversy. The former form is clearly more common. Both are equally ambiguous with a generic term for citizens of Hungary, and both appear to satisfy primary topic requirements in that regard.

Can someone point me to some sources that would contradict me? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think the current title is much better. From where I sit (in the UK) "Hungarians" are people who live in or are from the modern state of Hungary. I think the "Hungarian people" described here are meant to have a wider context and to include e.g. other Hungarian speakers in Romania. People over here certainly wouldn't regard someone born and bred and living in Romania but speaking the Hungarian language as "Hungarian", they would find that very strange. However they might see that they have a Hungarian ethnic or cultural background and something like "Hungarian people" describes them better, I think. Nigej (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

But why do you think that the term "Hungarian people" doesn't describe people who live in or are from the modern state of Hungary?

The issue you seem to be describing pretty much universally exists for the neighboring Germans, Austrians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Italians, ... and we don't use the "people" form to try to make that distinction. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me there is a distinction in normal English between "Germans" and "the German People". Germans are people from Germany. German people might not relate to a geographical entity. If the article here is to be about people from the modern state of Hungary then I would have no objection to it being called "Hungarians", but my impression is that that is not the case. A French speaker from Belgium would not regard himself as French. I can see that the article Romanians says that Romanians speak Romanian, thus implying that a Hungarian speaking Romanian citizen is not Romanian, which seems to me quite bizarre and contrary to normal English usage. When I hear on the news about worries that countless Romanians will come to the UK from 1 January the presenter is clearly referring to Romanian citizens and not Romanian speakers. In other words it's clearly pages like Romanians which have the wrong name. "Hungarian people" is quite correct in my view. Nigej (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not get it. Hungarians in Romania possess Romanian citizenship but when the census every ten years asks them they never say that they are Romanians. Anyway tens of thousands of Hungarians have received Hungarian citizenship in Romania recently. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Horribile dictu hundreds of thousands (more than 300,000 people). --Voxfax (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the number, that has no bearing on their ethnicity. What does have bearing is what they declare at the census: 1,227,623 as of 2011. (As an aside, the actual number is surely higher, as data were unavailable for 1,236,810 Romanian citizens, which would imply some 80,000 extra Hungarians if the proportions were the same.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Hungarian speakers in Romania do not say that they are Romanians might be true (I wouldn't know what the census actually asks - presumably it's in Romanian and Hungarian, neither of which I speak) but is not particularly relevant here. This is the English language version of Wikipedia and as such should reflect normal English usage around the world. Certainly here in the UK I've heard many instances of the word "Romanians" recently and they have all related to nationality of the modern state and not ethnicity or native language. Nigej (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have confused ethnicity, language and nationality. In the example about Romanians emigrating, they're probably talking about nationality, not language. At the same time, that example just shows that the word is ambiguous; it doesn't necessarily mean that the ethnicity isn't the primary topic for the word. In any event, because Hungarians is a redirect to this article, this whole line of discussion is moot because your claims disagree with the consensus (or at least the status quo) both in this case and in all those other cases. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, it is clear to me that the main usage of "Hungarians" in normal English is to mean someone from the modern state of Hungary. I can see that on occasions the word is used to mean something else (eg when talking about Hungarians before World War 1) but in my reading I haven't noticed too much ambiguity, just different meanings in different contexts. I don't understand your last sentence since I'm happy with the Status Quo here: article called Hungarian people, redirect Hungarians to Hungarian people.Nigej (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What I mean by status quo is that, by virtue of that redirect, the organic consensus on Wikipedia is that the term "Hungarians" primarily means members of the Hungarian ethnic group. The meaning "people from the modern state of Hungary" (this ethnic group plus a variety of other ethnic groups) is instead described at Demographics of Hungary. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't for a minute accept that "by virtue of that redirect, the organic consensus on Wikipedia is that the term "Hungarians" primarily means members of the Hungarian ethnic group." My reason for favouring "hungarians" redirecting here is that, since someone interested in "people from the modern state of Hungary" is likely to start their Wikipedia search with Hungary (or something similar) and be led from there, it is logical that someone typing "hungarians" has something else in mind (eg the "people" or "ethnic group"). I don't regard the redirect as implying any sort of consensus on the meaning of "hungarians", even less on the primary meaning of the word. It is quite clear to me that the normal meaning of the word "hungarians" (at least in the UK) is "people from the modern state of Hungary". I shall hear the words "romanians" and "bulgarians" many times in the next week or so (as the impending ending of work restrictions approaches) and I shall not be in the slightest doubt (and nor will anyone else) as to what is meant by those words.Nigej (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I see some merit in your argument, but I don't find it convincing, simply because "Hungarians" attracted over 10 thousand views just in the last three months, and it's been pointing here since July 2003‎ [10] with only one significant five-month interruption in 2005. I would find it seriously unlikely that in the ten years of fairly consistent behavior X, including during the heyday of Wikipedia editing, nobody ever followed through with the argument that the main usage of this reasonably common search term was misplaced here, and that behavior Y is how it should actually be. Had this been the case only in this one article, I'd yield that silence is the weakest form of consensus, but the same goes for several other such terms we mentioned earlier. It's still a perfectly legitimate discussion to have, but we're not entering into it at a point where there's no consensus. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I think titles in Category:Ethnic groups in Europe can, above all, be called random. Sometimes, "people" is used because the term is the same as the language, so we avoid confusion: English people, Portuguese people, Maltese people, French people, Dutch people. But then, why Estonians, Latvian people, Lithuanian people? Why Turkish people but 26 articles using "Turks" in Category:Turkish diaspora in Europe? Why Icelanders but Spanish people and not "Spaniards"? Delicious randomness. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly random. Latvians and Lithuanians are the same issue as I mentioned here - the redirects could be used as article titles. The word Spaniards probably isn't the more common word for the Spanish (sic), meaning it's the same issue as with the English. Only Turks actually stands out because it points to a disambiguation page, but there could be a legitimate reason - see the back-and-forths at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turks&action=history --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, they are largely random titles. Sadly some of these Ethnic group titles and the articles themselves seem to be mired in the history and politics of the area, the result being an uneasy compromise between various nationalists with a point to push.Nigej (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Hungarians, modern Hungarians and Madjars

According to István Raskó's team, "genetic differences exist between the ancient and recent Hungarian-speaking populations, and no genetic continuity is seen. Contrarily to this view, Horolma Pamjav's group sees connection between Madjars (a Kazakh tribe) and recent Hungarian population "they were closest to the Hungarian population rather than their geographical neighbors"

The expression "contrarily to this view" implies that Horolma Pamjav asserts that István Raskó is wrong, in other words that a genetic continuity is seen between old Hungarians and modern Hungarians. But that is false, Horolma Pamjav does not talk about ancient Hungarians. He only talks about modern Madjars and modern Hungarians. 79.117.176.88 (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

According to Pamjav's study Madjars and Hungarians have common ancestors. Pamjav's view about origin of Hungarians is entirely dissimilar from Rasko's opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If you did not like my edit, then you should have read the source, as my edit clearly uses what the source says - please do not claim that I am modifying sourced text. Nicholas ^(Alo!) 23:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Could you please read the whole section? Your text is there (Istvan Rasko's study)Fakirbakir (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, both studies are rubbish because of sample representativeness issues + methodological errors. Rasko emphasizes importance of TAT-C in ancient samples (because of language issues--Uralic connection), however the majority did not carry it, moreover he suggests common "European" haplogroups in the samples rather belonged to non-Hungarians... Pamjav concludes Central Asian origin of Hungarians and according to her view "European" haplogroups belonged to ancient Magyars too but did not give any explanation of Uralic origin of Hungarian language. Therefore Hungarian researchers have no idea who the "proto-Magyars" were "genetically". Fakirbakir (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

István Raskó and Horolma Pamjav made some genetical studies, but they did not compare the same groups. We can't talk about discordant results, because they analyzed different things. The opposite of "old Hungarians are genetically different of modern Hungarians" is "old Hungarians are genetically similar to modern Hungarians". What conclusions were drawn from the studies?79.117.176.88 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Look at this picture (It is from Rasko's study). Who can tell me which were the "Hungarian" haplogroups in the 10th century samples [11]? (1, 10th century--all samples together-- 2, samples of cemetery of Harta 3, the samples of the richer graves ---"presumably conqueror warriors"--- 4, poorer graves 5, present day Hungarian samples 6, present day Szekler samples.) Fakirbakir (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant: Among the 55 samples analyzed, the large majority belonged to haplogroups common in other European populations, however, three samples fulfilled the requirements of haplogroup M. Since haplogroup M is classified as a haplogroup characteristic mainly for Asian populations, the presence of haplogroup M found in approximately 5% of the total suggests that an Asian matrilineal ancestry, even if in a small incidence, can be detected among modern Hungarians. ( from here) 79.117.176.88 (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It will not help because M belongs to "Eastern Asian" haplogroups. M in Hungary is carried by descendants of "Huns" or "Mongols" (IMO). Central Asia (Caspian-Ural-Aral triangle) was/is rather European genetically where the proto-Hungarians lived. Also, we should not forget that Khanty-Mansi peoples (their language is quite close to Hungarians) migrated to Siberia from the south (Kazakh steppes) around 500 AD where they mixed with the local Paleosiberian population.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Being involved in Genetics I will say that Central Asian and North Asian/Siberian populations are close, genetically, with Europeans. From a historical view, Mongols left little to the Hungarian peoples, meaning that genetically, Hungarians (a name which I do not like because Magyars are not Huns!) are European, with as much Mongol influence as any other European nation, that is to say, very little if any. Nicholas ^(Alo!) 20:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)