Talk:Hungarians

Sumerian

Many scholars believe modern Magyars are ethnic descendants of the ancient Sumerians, based primarily on linguistic studies

More discussion on this contentious point can be found on the Sumerian talk page...

Hungarian, but lots of information of unspecified validity: http://www.turulmadar.hu/ See also (in hungarian): hu:Anonymus as the source of many origin legends, with similar questionnable validity.

---

Please some moderators remove the above text mentioning the sumerian origin and the turulmadar.hu site. This belief is highly associated with extreme hungarian nazionalism and racism :-(

Dear anon, removing the information does not make it cease to exist. Closing your eyes are even simpler. Hard is to explain why do you associate it with that, and keep the reader informed about that. (And sign your comments.) --grin ✎ 19:22, 2005 Jan 25 (UTC)

Iberia

The Huns reached Iberia? Are you sure?

Magyar history - different theories

I've added a link to the Magyar page that points to a page that summarizes the different theories regarding the history of the Magyar people. Hopefully it is helpful. (My first Wikipedia edit!) -Lane Wimberley

Names

Why refer to Denmark as Dania and Spain as the Hispanic penninsula?

Lee S. Svoboda 22:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Arpad and Attila

24.69.255.205 wrote: Arpad the Hungarian's leader was known to have been the descendant of Attila.

Is this Magyar oral tradition? --Joy [shallot] 10:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Above all, this is non-sense...Juro 23:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

She says "was known to have been...". That theory is not taught in schools today. Historians in Hungary do not accept it. However there is a theory (among the many others) that states there is a weak cultural link between Hungarians and Huns through the Avars still being here in the 9th century.

Bulgaro-Turks

I don't know where this term came from (I guess it's a kalk of the Hungarian word) but it does not exist in English and is basically wrong. Pls, use Bulgars, thank you. VMORO 16:20, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

You are quite mistaken. The term is well-established in scholarly circles and is used to distinguish the Turkic, Proto-Bulgar culture from its later Slavified incarnation. Nor is it a new term. I read it in the work of Kenneth Setton as early as 1950 (e.g., The Bulgars in the Balkans and the Occupation of Corinth in the Seventh Century. Dimiter Markovsky has also referred extensively to Asparukh's horde as Bulgaro-Turks. The terms "Bulgaro-Turkic" and "Bulgaro-Turk" have numerous google hits.--Dzimmer6 13:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You two just differ in terminology - Dzimmer6 says "proto-Bulgar" for something VMORO would say "proto-Bulgarian". VMORO says "Bulgars" for the ancient people, Dzimmer6 says "Bulgaro-Turks". It would be reasonable to assume that Dzimmer says "Bulgars" for the modern nation, but VMORO (and everyone else) says "Bulgarians". --Joy [shallot] 10:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, I use "Bulgarians" to refer to the modern, Slavic-speaking, Danube-based nation. I use proto-Bulgars and Bulgars to refer to earlier, largely Turkic incarnations, and other branches of the nation such as the Volga Bulgars. But that's largely beside the point- my dispute with VMORO had to do specifically with whether the term "Bulgaro-Turk" is a valid term. VMORO claims that it is a made-up word that should not be used. I argue, and have demonstrated, that "Bulgaro-Turk" does appear in scholarly works. It is used to refer largely to those nations I personally would call "proto-Bulgars" and "Bulgars". I personally haven't used "Bulgaro-Turk", but to claim that it "does not exist in English and is basically wrong" is not correct. --Dzimmer6 22:17, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

cool!

Sorry about my computer.... sheesh!

Anyways I LOVE HUNGARY (maybe because I am of Hungarian descent! and that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic...

I do believe I have read some of the facts on this page somewhere else, so whoever wrote this (who did write this?) might have gotten it off the same page or is right. But we don't really know what is right. I mean, that was a really long time ago...

Keep writing about Hungary! Yay!

The first part was written by various wikipedians, the second part (History) exclusively by me based on scientific texts, and the last part (the legends) was copied by someone from a chat page, I left it here so that people can see what "theories" can arise in human heads. In sum, the only part you coud have read elsewhere is the legends. Juro 22:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

"Norman" neighbours = Varangians?

When you say there wee "Norman" neighbours I presume you mean Varangians - that might be a better link, since they are not referred to as Normans - although true, both are basically the same people, but the Varangians imposed caste over Russia and Ukraine; whereas "Normans" refers to those Vikings or Norsemen who imposed cast over Normandy France, and from there England and Sicily. Codex Sinaiticus 11:41, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Normans is just the name for (any) Vikings used in Frankish chronicles. And Variags are not all eastern Vikings (as far as I know). In addition, the text I have used clearly distinguishes (on other places) between Normans, Vikings and Variags, so I do not think they have made an error. But to prevent any confusion, I can replace the Normans with "Vikings". Juro 23:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

edit wars: Huns and Sumerians

This is turning into an edit war with Sandor in particular (and other anonymous accounts) repeatedly messing with the NPOV character of the article.

In summary: Yes, there is a school of thought (among many others)that states the Hungarians are directly descended from the Sumerians. But to repeatedly revert to versions stating that this theory is the "most credible" of all the others (or any variation thereof) is a violation of wiki policy. In particular, they have restored numerous times the contention that this theory is only questioned by "political motives".

I'm sorry, but there are a LOT of other reasons why scholars might have a problem with the "Sumerian descent" theory. These have more to do with the quality of the "evidence" than with any polical designs of the Hapsburgs, Bolsheviks, or modern Romanians. Simply put, if there really is any evidence whatsoever that "Hungarians are Sumerians", I'd like to see that evidence presented clearly, perhaps on a new page or section, like the page we now have on the "Turkic" theory... (Hungarian prehistory)... But summarily declaring that one set of scholars is "credible", or the other set, isn't going to get anywhere, except into the old "Well, THEIR scholars may be credible to them, but OUR scholars are credible to US..." game.

Come on, if even only one person in the whole world finds a scholar "credible", that scholar may be described as credible... But as noone I'm aware of has conducted a survey of scholars -- either within or outside of Hungary -- to question their opinion on whether or not they are descended from Sumerians, it is pointless for both sides to claim a "majority". Standard wiki policy on neutrality is just to present both sides of the story without appearing to take either side, and without suppressing either side.

Face it, Hungarians may well descend from the Sumerians, but for that matter, almost EVERYONE else can put in a similar claim, so Hungarians are hardly special or unique in that regard. Don't forget about the people who are supposedly intermediate between the "Huns" and the "Sumerians" -- ie, the "Scyths" and "Cimmerians". Right now its looking like practically everyone in Europe and Asia came from them. Even the African races are reawakening to ancient traditions that their ancestors too migrated from Mesopotamia. Maybe there is some very good reason why we are ALL descended from the Sumerians, if that was the first populated place, as some say. Codex Sinaiticus 23:31, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Hunnish and Sumerian "theories" are not even mentioned as existing in scientific texts abroad and in general texts of the Hung. Academy of Sciencies (And I have to add that the Sumerian theory is absolutely ridiculous from any point of view). And a general remark: for almost every nation there are some weird theories of origin, but a general encyclopaedia cannot mention any ridiculous variant for every sentence it contains. Nevertheless, I cannot understand why the two vandals do not add separate sections on the two and other theories (although I am afraid that a "disputed" warning will have to be added to them, given the sentences about "political" motives that they try to add to the present article, which, again, is absolutely ridiculous). Also, the clearly very biased Hungarian prehistory article, should be deleted if we have a separate section on that theory (which ever it is) in this article. There is no reason to have such a long article just to present the ideas of one person. Juro 01:27, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As it stands, Hungarian prehistory contains the theories of one man, but I would rather see all "alternate" theories eventually find a home in sections on *that* page... for starters, I'm going to add the unscholarly piece about Sumerians that used to appear at the end of this article, to the end of that article. Codex Sinaiticus 01:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the Sumerian part was not even an attempt to be a scientific text, it was only copied by someone from a chat page...I have only kept it in the article with the comment that it contains legends...In other words: Its content is not equivalent to any other theory we have here Juro 01:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are many factual problems with that piece (now appearing at the end of Hungarian prehistory), and it does need a lot of work, but I have seen websites that do a much better job of presenting these same legends, so perhaps there is some hope... Codex Sinaiticus 01:58, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would require really a lot of research to sum up all the (true) arguments in favour and against all the "alternate" theories. I am afraid, we will not be able to provide a balanced picture, especially given that Sándor et al. will add only their views during the following days (I assume :)... And "neutral formulations" about wrong facts are not a good solution...Juro 02:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Credibility of Sumerian theories

Here we go again. *sigh* After all the edit wars a couple of month ago on Uralic languages and Finno-ugric languages (which ended in an RFC and an RFAr) now we see this. Will the fun never end?

Let me give you just one link about the Sumerian and similar theories: Madness in the Media An anthropological discussion of the significance of theories of cultural and historical primacy illustrated with examples from Hungary and Serbia

Sumerian theories are only supported by the far right of the political spectrum (surprise, surprise) and have next to none penetration in Academia in Hungary. To my knowledge, these theories are not even mentioned in the standard textbooks. Of course the proponents of said theories blame this on the vast Habsburg-Soviet-UFO conspiracy.

In short: the Sumerian stuff is a joke.

-- nyenyec ☎ 02:20, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What ever has been done with the other articles, we will have to do that with this one, too. Unfortunately, I will not have the time during the next days to involve in any longer discussion, especially not at the level od the edits of the anonymous below. Juro 17:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sumerians, Huns and Magyars

These guys that insist in IMPOSING their viewpoint, without leaving possibility to others' opinion, are showing that they are indeed moved by political reasons. If they were truly impartial, they would allow EVERY theory to be exposed, as I did not erase their own (the biased and disavowed Ugro-Finnic theory). But they simply consider any other hypothesis as "legends", quoting from other websites WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION and VIOLATING COPYRIGHT LAWS. If they were honest, they would present both theories without comments, leaving the readers to decide. Their biased information is shown to be dishonest since they deny the very existence of Árpád, by stating "is believed to be the leader"... I suspect, these guys are Romanians that intend to deny the rights of Hungarians to their own existence in the Carpathian basin. They are unable to explain how did the Hun hordes vanish without leaving traces, they don't suggest any people descending from them. They deny the fact that when Árpád's Magyars reached the Carpathian basin, they easily assimilated the remaining Avars, Huns and Onogurs because they had the same language and culture, and the same writing system, the rovás. They also fail to explain why Sumerian language was deciphered ONLY with the help of Hungarian. Of course, they will insist in denying the evidences... They also ignore many of the most credited scholars, supporting the revisionists that accept the Austrian-Soviet-Romanian viewpoint.

Linguistics vs. history

There is clear linguistic evidence on the Finno-Ugric origin of the language, which is accepted by all Hungarian academics who are familiar with the up-to-date methods of historical linguistics. – The origins of the people may, however, be (to my knowledge) open to debate within some boundaries, like between the Finno-Ugric group and the Turks (but not including Sumerians). My history teacher acquaintance who not only taught that subject for about 30 years but is also an education supervisor is not convinced of the Finno-Ugric theory, either. This means that history may sometimes "clash" with linguistics, but it's not impossible that a people takes up a new language, like in the case of Bulgarians, who originally spoke a Turkic language and today they speak a Slavic language. Supposing that genetics and historical evidence should someday irrevocably show that Hungarians are of Turkish or whatever else origins, the Finno-Ugric linguistic ties can still hold true.

Adam78 13:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Linguistics vs. history (2)

In fact, the research based on linguistics only is inaccurate and most times doesn't coincide with ethnic origins. The example given is good; Bulgarians were Slavicized and so they speak "Bulgarian" now, a Slavonian tongue. The same happens with Croatians. Most Italians are not Romans but Barbarians, yet they speak Italian. Romanians are not Latin at all, despite their language. The Franks were Germanic, but French is a Latin language, and so on (in any case, not Celtic, as the original Gaul people were absorbed by the Franks, Normans, etc.). The supporters of the Ugro-Finnic theory fail in explaining which was the language of the Huns and deny the fact that the rovás used by Árpád's Magyars was exactly the same used by Huns and Avars. They also deliberatery ignore the fact that Sumerian language was undecipherable until researchers used Magyar as the key. They still fail in explaining where did the Magyar myths come from - because even if they are myths (I mean, the Turul, the Hind, etc.) they belong to the cultural ancestry of every people. You cannot expect from Greeks to have other than Greek mythology, would you? or perhaps from Scandinavians to have other than Odin, Thor etc. in their myths, if not from their own people, would you? So, which "Ugro-Finnic" myth does exist in Magyar tradition? Why only Scythian-Hun legends remained? Why the legendary characters still have Sumerian names (while in other cultures that inherited the same myhtology, they have changed the names)? Just as the Finns have the Kalevala, which "Ugro-Finnic" myth do Hungarians have?

What you are saying here (and writing ?) is such an obvious non-sense that any response would be ridiculous, and I really wonder that you are not ashamed of participating and discussing here. Juro 17:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course, any response that YOU may give would be ridiculous, because you cannot give a reasonable one, as well as you're not ashamed of behaving like a true Nazi.

"Juro"

Mr Juro thinks to be the owner of Wikipedia, as he deletes every link to websites containing research about Hungarian origins, hindering the readers to know all the different theories and judge by themselves. He is evidently moved by political interests, a kind of Nazi that does not accept any disagreement with his own biased viewpoint. Neutrality is seriously threatened when an article is arbitrarily written by someone that does not allow to present the other points of view and shamelessly deletes what others write, including external links that present research from credited scholars.

This is the highest kind of primitivism I have ever seen here...Not only are you so primitive to tranpose your personal characteristics which are of no interest here to others, but you also delete other users contributions on talk pages...I did not plan to be active here, but now strict measures will follow. All users besides you have clearly stated that what they think about your edits. Juro 23:42, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You wrote this reply watching yourself on the mirror, didn't you?

"Finno-Ugric homeland by the Urals"

Finno-Ugric is a group of related languages, which does NOT mean that the peoples currently speaking those languages are equally related. Same holds true, for example, for Indo-European languages. Finnish and Estonian are about as distantly related to Hungarian as, e.g., Hindi and Nepali are related to Swedish. It is a linguistic fact. However, it does not mean that the Swedes must somehow also be so (genetically) related to Hindus, that ten or twelve thousand years ago there must have been somewhere a small "Indo-European" homeland where both the Swedes' and Hindus' ancestors lived. That's why it is similarly preposterous when a so-called "Finno-Ugric" theory tries to force the ancestors of modern Finns and Hungarians into a small original homeland around the Ural mountains. This theory is based on thin linguistic evidence (estimates of the timing and extent of contact between languages), no archaeological evidence (which would enable to determine the archaeological artifacts' original users' DNA or language spoken), and outright contradicting genetic evidence (nothing has been found in the Finns' and Estonians' genes so far that would indicate that they have more "Eastern" origins than Swedes, Germans and Latvians; or that they would share with Ugric-speaking Hungarians, but not with their neighbouring Indo-European speaking peoples.)

The Finno-Ugric theory does not mean "theory of the Finno-Ugric linguistic group" and it is , despite some peoples beliefs, suppported by a lot of archaelogical and other findings and other arguments besides linguistics. There are even findings prooving the moves of the peoples in question (which is quite rare in archaelogy), like skis etc. Also, the theory is the only normal and accepted theory by all serious authorities in the Carpathian Basin (Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, Romania etc.). That's just a fact. That does not mean that there are not different opinions (like in almost everything from that period). As an example, the external link in this article shows several maps and pictures from various Hungarian expert texts, all of which show the same thing. Linguistics was only the first idea that has given birth to that theory, not more. And what you write above applies to linguistics - But nevertheless, I have recently written a short article on the development of Finno-Ugric languages and the Finns are still there in standard texts - the whole periodization of Uralic languages is in fact based on that assumption. And DNA tests are useless. In most Hungarians for example you will not find any Eastern "genes", because over the centuries they have been - as persons - largely "exterminated" (Turks etc.) and "replaced" by waves of colonists from other territories. If there was no history science nobody would believe today that they are not from Europe, because they do not differ from their neighbours. Who knows what happened to the Finns over the centuries... Juro 18:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know who are the "serious authorities in the Carpathian Basin", but let me first reassure you that it has been more than half a century now since the last time any "serious authorities" in Finland claimed that a large part of the ancestors of Finns came from the area of Ural mountains. You see, Juro, nobody argues with the Ugric part of your Carpathian-based "Finno-Ugric theory" in that the migration of the "ancient Magyars" from East to West can indeed be traced. The problem is with the "Finno-" part. The theory's claim that the ancient proto-Finnic-speaking peoples migrated from Western Siberia and/or the Ural mountains east all the way to modern Finland has long been discarded. Some Finnish and Estonian scientists (mostly linguists) still posit a proto-Finnic homeland near central Volga and Kama rivers (nowhere near the Ural mountains), but it is one alternative theory at best. The archaeologists have found no substantiated evidence of Finnic east-to-west migration on the Urals-to-Finland line. Just one first, random, link on the topic http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/where_do.html#east but if you are curious, please look up, there is plenty of similar internet and Wikipedia information to be found from Finnish, Estonian, and other sources. Anon 10:18, 20 July 2005 (CET)

In genetic terms, one says the Asiatic genes were "swamped" by European genes, after they arrived and began to breed wih their neighbours... Of course, a few vestiges are bound to remain in the host population when this happens, often "recessive" ones... Codex Sinaiticus 20:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There have been repeated invasions and (planned) colonizations from the East (Cumanianas, Pechenegs etc.) in the Kingdom of Hungary, remainings of Avars etc. in the territory, influences from the time of Turkish occupation (and the Turks in turn have Eastern influences etc.) and the Hungarians were largely, if not completely, "replaced" (as mentioned above). So even if "Eastern genes" were found "in" Hungarians or they neighbours, one cannot reasonnably say whose genes they are, and if someone is claiming the opposite, he is lying...And the same applies virtually to entire Eastern Europe...Juro 01:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Unless a particular individual happened to have reliable genealogical data tracing his own ancestry all the way to 895 AD... I have no idea if there is any such thing, but I have been surprised before...

Genes can get "swamped" (as I described above) fairly quickly. Let's say a first generation Asiatic settles in Europe in 895 AD, and takes a European peasant girl as his concubine, forming a household. The offspring will be only 50% Asiatic, with 50% Asiatic allelomorphs. Now let's say that generation grows up, and in 920 AD, the 50% Asiatic son marries a local Slavic girl. Next (3rd) generation to marry European produces only 25% Asiatic. Assuming no new influx of Asiatic "blood", the 4th generation (or 4th time the pedigree gets swamped with intermarriage, rather) will be 12.5% Asian, 5th time is 6.2.5%; 6th time is 3.125%, and by the time you get to the 20th Century, the Asian blood is only a tiny fraction of a percent, and any differences between the base population and their European neighbours would take a trained eye to spot. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 01:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Codex, your calculation only applies when that "first generation Asiatic" and all his descendants always choose a local mate, ie., one with 0% Asiatic allelomorphs. If there had been an undisturbed development of a "consistent Hungarian population" (the mere expression is ridiculous) for a thousand years, there would have been much less "cross-breeding" with the peoples already in the Carpathian Basin, or those arriving afterwards, and therefore the original "gene pool" would still be more or less preserved (by which I mean that there would be quite a number of allelomorphs that are "typically Hungarian" in the area). Which is pretty much not the case – and this is better shown by the argument of Juro. Everyone in Hungary with the slightest amount of education must know that there were loads of other peoples continuously cross-breeding with the Hungarians that came with Árpád. All the more so because up to the 19th century no one gave a damn what ethnicity you are – the best example is Sándor Petőfi, who was as Magyar as anyone can ever be, and died for the Hungarian cause in the war of 1848/49, yet he was born Petrovic to a Serbian father and a Slovak mother, in the very middle of present-day Hungary.

All this discussion, however, does show something: that we cannot speak about the "origin of Hungarians". We can say things about the origins of the Hungarian language or the origins of Hungarian culture; but we can have no freakin' idea who the ancestors of present-day Hungarians are. Turning your calculation the other way, and assuming that a generation is about 25 years, it follows that roughly 44 generations have passed since the year 900, and therefore I (for example) have 2**44 = 17,592,186,044,416 ancestors that lived in that year. Heck, the population of the entire planet was significantly less than 1/10000th of that! Sure, because a lot of people are counted multiple times in this figure. Given this, I'm pretty sure that practically all of the Hungarians of that time are my ancestors (not counting the ones whose lineage died out in the meantime, of course), and a significant part of the Avars, Slavs, Pechenegs, Cumans, Bulgars, Vlachs, Germans, and a smaller percentage of innumerable other peoples likewise. This simple calculation also shows, as a side effect, that it is totally and absolutely impossible for anyone to trace their entire ancestry back to the year 895 or anywhere near that – I'm not talking about a single line of ancestry that goes always father to son, but it's useless in terms of DNA, because the relevance of any "DNA evidence" – should it be collected somehow – is always halved with each generation. KissL 08:39, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

All good points, KissL. We are all relatives, and how close ones at that is just a matter of inbreeding. One point in correction, though. Not all DNA gets halved with each generation. Mitochondrial DNA passes down 100% from mother to daughter, and Y-chromosome DNA from father to son (sans only an occasional mutation). The sequences of this maternal and paternal line DNA, and the differences thereof between various modern peoples tells quite a lot about their ancestry and degree of mutual relationship. Anon 11:05, 20 July 2005 (CET)

• All your points are well taken, Kissl! I knew full well I was oversimplifying the equation, because when you have an entire population that immigrates, it will cut down on the intermixing and slow down the "swamping" process...

If you follow my paternal line back 9 generations to about 1680, I have an ancestor with my last name, who was "Metis" - French father, native Canadian Indian mother. His son was only 25% Indian, and the next was 12.5% Indian. But that one who was 12.5% Indian married a wife who happened to be 75% Indian, 25% French. So I calculate that their son was 43.75% Indian. His French wife meant the next generation was 21.875% Indian, and the next 10.9375% Indian, with about 89% French. Now the next two generations both married women whose parents had immigrated from Germany, so suddenly, you have my blond, blue-eyed grandfather who was 75% German, and only 2.734375% Indian. His wife's parents came from Ireland, so my father is half Irish, quarter German, and 1.3671875% Indian. My mother's ancestors also came in the 1600's and she also has a similar fraction of Indian descent (from another tribe), maybe about 1%. This means I am approximately 1% native and 99% European, although I still have a "Metis" surname, I have blond hair and blue eyes like my father and grandfather, and few people claim to "see" any Indian features in me. That's after only some 300-400 years of the Indian population living side by side with Europeans, so if you assume populations that have been neighbours since 900 AD, they will be that much more homogenous, as I suspect is the case in Central Europe. Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 18:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

History after 896

These lines below contain a couple of inaccurate infos

"Since the end of the 13th century (except for the Ottoman period 1538/1541 - early 18th century), the multi-ethnic Kingdom of Hungary, founded by the Magyars in the 10th century, occupied the entire Carpathian Basin. Despite its name, the state as a whole was inhabited by many nationalities besides the Magyars (e.g. by 71.1% other nationalities in 1781). "

1. as early as the 11th century St. Stephen expand its control over the hole Carpathian Basin. Koppany, Gyula, Ajtony were defeated by him to strenghten the young feudal state.

It depends on how you define the "Carpathian Basin" - if you understand it as the Pannonian plain (ie the lowlands), then you are right, if it is supposed to include the Carpathians, then the above statement is right. If you want to have "the whole" there you have to change Carpathian Basin in the Pannonian plain.

2. Hungary was not a multi-ethnic kingdom in the early middle age at all. Around 80% of the total populataion were Magyars. 20% was german, french, wallon, cuman, pecheneg, wallach, slavs hospes (guests). Totally 3,500,000 million Magyars + 7-800,000 non Magyars (and if we consider that til 1789 half of France population didn't even speak french, ... not at all bad ;))

That's just a lie...I cannot even believe that you have read this in a serious text...There were hardly 50% Magyars in present-day Hungary, not to mention the whole kingdom.

Sorry to say that, but you're misinformed. Almost all hungarian historian agree that at the peak of the kingdom in the early sixteen century Hungary's population was around 4-4.5 milion, greater than the UK's. 3-3.5 million of these were Magyars. Of course due to the lack of authoritative contemporary sources, this is just an estimation which base on the dense settlement network (18,000 serf-villages, 900 market towns, and around 30 free royal towns existed at that age in the hole Carphatians) and of course their names origin and least but not last the church registers and papal lists...--fz22 06:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

3.After the ottoman period things have changed radically. After 150 years of Ottoman occupation and permanent wartime the population was still 4 million, but with a completely changed ethnic structure: 55% Magyars 45% non Magyars. After another 100 year and massive anti-Magyars Habsburg resettlement policy, only 39% ( and not 71.1% other nacionalitis, according to 1784 census) of the former kingdom's population were Magyars --fz22 08:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The 55% are at best someone's personal hope, because there is absolutely no way how to determine the ethnic structure especially for such a chaotic period. And the "nationalist" 70% is the official number, maybe the difference stems from the usual great vs. proper Hungary question or from the fact that some of the census data got lost (in addition the following censuses show, as far as I remember, again numbers belows below 39% - the Magyars would have to "evaporate" around 1800 then if you do not like the number)Juro 19:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

this isn't just a hope. There are several reliable sources from whom you can obtain valuable informations: church-rate registers and imperial rolls. After the 150year of Ottoman occupation there were counties where 85-90% or even more of the settlements had simple vanished. The city of Oradea's population which used to be a renaissance center before the Ottomans, decreased from 5-10,000, in 1500s to 200 resident in 1690s ...--fz22 06:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I am very busy these days...so without going into details, I can only say that I have learned/read other data. My personal remarks:

• The church registers etc. I know (I am not an expert on church documents) do not contain information on nationality (the nationality can be usually only guessed from the name, but that is almost always wrong, comp. the "Slovak" name Mikloš or the "Hungarian" name Kovács [meaning "smith" in Slovak] etc.)
• The early 18th century was a period of the Rákóczi uprising (people died, such lists do not say who died or the nationality) and of resettlement of present-day Hungary (to a large extent WITHIN the kingdom! - intuitively, I wonder where all the Magyars suddenly appeared in the non-Magyar territories of the kingdom - they certainly had not been in Slovakia or Burgeland - that's sure), I cannot imagine worse circumstances for population estimates than this one...

But it is always interesting to see other data...Juro 00:08, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

One of the most ancient document regarding Transilvania's population is the Papal Tithe list from the early XIV. century. Acording to this document around 1000 parishes existed in eastern Hungary.

And here historians divide in two. There are those who say, (eg romanian historian Stefan Pascu) '1000 of the 2600 settlements had been populated mainly by Hungarians and Germans. assuming that only Romanian Orthodox population lived in every other village.' And then there are those (hungarian historians Gy. Gyorffy, Gyula Balinth), who think that the proper ratio betwen settlements and parishes is 2:1. Thus 2000 village was Roman Catolic and only 400 Orthodox.

However I accept there is no direct/100% certain evidence to decide which theory/POV is true ...--fz22 06:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

09/08 changes

It is more superficial than the previous version and essential facts were deleted(1). Plus contains "NPOV" in topics in which exist only hungarian research issues(2).--fz22 12:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Just an arithmetical contradiction: Hungarians numbered around 2,000,000 people in 1700 according to imperial census. Right? The european average population growth between 1500-1700 was 50% per 100 years. Another issue of fact. And here is the proof by contradiction: if we consider the european growth to be true for hungarians we get 850,000 Magyars in 1500. Redictio ad absurdum. 40% natural population growth for Hungarians in 600 year?!?!? --fz22 13:22, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand that you tried to make the article more "neutral" but you deleted a lot of important facts. Zello 13:09, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Guys, if you have read WP:NPOV (and also WP:NOR), you'll see clearly what I meant with my edit. I think I left the article in a better shape than it was. I'm not an expert of the topic, I just copyedited the earlier versions to make it conform to NPOV.

The thing is, as I wrote in the article, "There is no agreement among historians about the possible changes in the ethnic structure throughout history." (An agreement among Hungarian historians is an important thing of course, but that's not all there is to it.) This means that we can't have it like "the percentage of Magyars was 80% at this time, 50% at that time", as established facts (and this is not talking about what I believe, naturally).

If you can put those same data back in the article together with accurate arguments supporting them, please do. As I don't know the exact arguments, I couldn't do anything other than remove them for the time being.

A final point - if you have detailed info on the Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary, why not create a separate article about it? I'm not sure the reader of the Magyars article will want more details than what we already have.

KissL 13:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

This time I don't have any time or motivation for this fight always around the same question. Zello 02:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

monk Julianus, out of place??

Why?

I think monk Julianus should be mentioned when we talk about Bashkiria and the 'homeland of ancestors'. His role and his historical journey is significant. - Fz22

Well yes, he is in some way relevant, but I'm not sure his story fits into this article. At least, it certainly doesn't fit in the middle of a series of historical events that took place centuries earlier... If you can find a good place for him, which makes the relevance and the context clear for the reader, I have nothing against it. KissL 13:11, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

>OK, we could make a new article for him ... I think he deservs it. He wandered all over a land bigger then the west europe of the age ...--fz22 13:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Explanation

... of my recent edit. It is true that I had mixed up "Magyars" and "Magyars in Hungary" a bit, thanks Juro for putting that in order. However, if we talk about Magyars in Hungary, the correct 2050 estimate is 6-8 million.

About the Magyarisation paragraph, I think there is no way of proving that it was the sole reason for the increase in the percentage of Magyars, therefore I removed the words "this figure is due to". I think the mention of Magyarisation in the same paragraph, with the connecting word "however", is drawing enough attention to the connection between the two, and we can leave the conclusion for the reader.

Finally, about the Romanians - it is a heated controversy whether the Romanians already lived in Transylvania at the time of the arrival of the Magyars. AFAIK there is (indirect) evidence that their ancestors had lived there before, but there is also (indirect) evidence that they had migrated south, and returned only from the 13th century onwards. Even these two statements are disputed. So as not to violate WP:NOR, I think the best would be to keep silent about this matter. (Which means both stating nothing and implying nothing; feel free to update if you think something is being implied.)

KissL 07:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Ad Magyarisation. If you say "However,..." then you are actually saying "this figure is largely due to" (I do not see another "normal" linguistical interpretation), the reader only has to think more...So far for the formal argument. As for the content, if you dealt with the topic in detail, you would not "believe your eyes" (like me when I first dealt with Magyarisation in detail) - what was happening was close to ethnic cleansing. Originally, I wanted to write the Magyarisation article (there is an absolutely excelent contemporary English book of Robert W. Seton-Watson and of course a lot of Slovak material), but I will not do that because I would be considered anti-Hungarian nationalist then and some Hungarians would delete it soon or later anyway (that's the intrinsic problem of the wikipedia). Even the part that is considered "natural" assimilation of Germans, is part of the Magyarisation, because the government managed to persuade everybody that other nations than Hungarians do not exist (to put it simply). And Jews actually "do not count" in this context, because, historically at least, they are very oppotunist people - large parts always declare themselves in line with the majority population (this happened in Czechoslovakia too) - only the religion figures show that there were far more Jews in reality. Juro 18:54, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Robert Seton-Watson is a well-known anti-Hungarian propagandist. Accepting his statements is the same as you belive to David Irving in the question of Holocaust or John Reed in the question of the Bolshevik Revolution. Better not to write this article yet. Of course Magyarisation is an important topic but you should refrain yourself from these extremists. Zello 19:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, first he was a pro-Hungarian propagandist (writing about the great Hungarians in the present and in history etc.), then he visited the country, saw the data, spoke to the people and changed his mind. He later became a propagandist - but not anti-Hungarian, but against the Kindgom of Hungary (you see how important it is to distinguish these terms), but this happened AFTER he had written this book and many other books. Read the book, you will find nothing but Hungarian numbers, Hungarian statements and some appendixes on folk culture. The point is, he did not have to do nothing but to summarize official Hungarian numbers and statements - the situation was so bad that it was not even necessary to add anything. But take this only as a recommendation. Juro 04:39, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Ad Romanians: It just does not look right if no people is mentioned for the east...Something should be there...Juro 18:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was ;) Unpenetrated forest ... the first mention of Romanians ('Vlachs') in Hungarian documents comes in the thirteenth century, when they figure only as roving shepherds, and not numerous. That is another fact ;)

Well, the Romanians have another opinion, and I would add something about that, but I just do no know enough about it. Secondly, I do not believe the "unpenetrated forest" story and "uninhabited area" story for any mountainous part of Europe. People were living even in high positions even before BC, as archeological finds show. And Hungarian historians had this "unpenetrated forest" for the Slovaks in the past too, a story that proved to be completely wrong, of course...And I have almost forgotten, remember that a reliable mention about anything in this region starts about the 12th/ 13th century, because older texts are rare or not preserved - so what you are saying above is no evidence. Juro 01:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The Origin of Romanians is a good article with a lot of pros and cons about the Daco-Roman Theory. I think it is better no to recreate this debate here, IMHO it is not probable that we would come to a new conclusion. But nobody says that Transylvania was uninhabited at the time of the Magyar conquest. On the contrary: the toponimy indicates that it was inhabited by Slavic people as almost the whole Carpathian Basin. Zello 16:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the mention of the Battle of Mohács because the decreasing of the Magyar population in the southern counties began already in the 15th century due to the marauding Ottoman armies. There are sources which tell that whole regions became deserted much before Mohács. Zello 10:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

That's true, but in 1526 was the first time in history when a GREAT Ottoman army (150,000-strong - 75,000 regular and provincial cavalry troops, in addition to a like number of irregulars and auxiliaries) led by the Sultan himself have marched INSIDE the Hungary and Buda... This single campain cost 150,000 Magyars lives... In 1521 the Ottomans conquered Belgrad, but they had no other choice but to give up their further plans concerning Hungary.

I think it's better not to mention special events, because the 15 years war, the Tartar campaign in Transylvania and the Liberation war had more serious demographic consequences than Mohács. The expression "at the Ottoman conquest" indicate the whole process. Zello 16:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Acceptable. However I just want to point out how destructive was and imperial Ottoman army. Between 30 june 1526 and september 1526 over 150,000 people (mostly Magyars) was slaughtered plus those killed directly in the battle (around 15,000). There was 7 or 8 great campains between 1526-1683.--fz22 08:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Magyars in Hungary replaced with Magyars. We are talking here about Magyars in general. The estimation for 2050 referes to Magyars in Carpathians. --fz22 20:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Juro: Hungarian minorities are rapidly decreasing in the 1990s. Here are the numbers from the official censuses: Slovakia from 567 296 to 520 528 , Ukraine from 155 711 to 151 516, Romania 1 603 923 to 1 415 718 (!!!) and Serbia from 339 491 to 290 207 (!!!). And the situation is even worse than it seems because the emigrants are always the young people. There is some kind demographic catastrophe in Serbia and Romania, and the long-time probability of the survival of Hungarian communities outside the borders are very bad. Zello 19:08, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

1. The decrease from 567 296 to 520 528 is to a great extent purely statistical, a large part decleared itself as Roma this time. And there has been no significant emigration to Hungary. 2. Generally the whole paragraph is just ridiculous - why, if you give WWII and Communists as a reason for Hungarian "depression", the same did not hold for the neighbouring countries? And, do you really think there is a telepatic link/ meta-link between the Hungarians in all Europe determining their depression and birth rate??- you cannot write about Magyars in general, you must write about Magyars in Hungary, Magyars in Romania etc. and distinguish the situation. The true reason for the population decrease in Hungary , and that's my personal opinion, is that the country was living too much under a socially unfavourable mixture of socialism and capitalism combined with a "too early" western "way of thinking". But that's tied to Hungary as a state.Juro 19:22, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The whole paragraph is bad, depression etc, but we should concentrate on the last sentence. Decreasing is a fact after the official datas. Emigration to Hungary is tipical - after the Hungarian emigration datas hundred-thousends of Magyar people arrived in the recent decade. Of course mainly from Transsylvania and Serbia but some from Slovakia (university students for example who never goe home). Natural decrease is quick among Hungarian inside and outside the borders but in minority other factors are working too. Zello 19:34, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Belive it or not, that is true, there are a couple of milestone in the Magyars' history in the last century: 1920, 1944, 1956, 1977-1980. the Magyars number decreased, increased, stagnated ghostly equally doesn't matter in which country they live. Eg suicide rate in Hungary and Harghita, Covasna counties. The Magyars were also branded as "guilty nation" of the region responsible for every evil thing happened between 1914-1945 ...--fz22 20:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you really think the people today commit suicide because of WWII or the Treaty of Trianon ? Do you REALLY think that?...Folks, if you really think that such texts are good promotion for Hungary, you are wrong. But I will not change that. I will wait until a Hungarian does it. Juro 01:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, as you wish, but I just repeat that as for Slovakia (at lest) the sentence is just not correct (exaggerated), the number of Magyars actually stagnated over the last 10 years just as the rest of the population. And there are no "40 000" students in Hungary of course and many Slovak Hungarians I know study in Austria or other western countries taking advantage of naturally knowing both Slovak, Czech, Hungarian, and English (at least)...Juro 19:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I admit that the situation is different in Slovakia and for example Romania. But as a whole these are the main factors: natural decrease, assimilation, emigration. And the real problem is that old people stay home and young people go - so the next generations will be more and more few. Zello 20:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

The events of the 20th century hindered the natural growth of the Magyars inside the borders too. Only after 1956 appr. 200 000 people emigrated to Western-Europe and the US - most of them young again. There were a wave of emigration in 1948 and in the 1930s too, and the 2. world war caused immeasurable human loss. Zello 18:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, the same applies to (Czecho)Slovakia or say eastern Germany for example (the only exception being 1968 instead of 1956), but the difference is that there were other political circumstances in the 70s and 80s and that's the true reason. Slovakia or Czechia will also have the same decrease like Hungary but slightly shifted in time (some 15 years later), because the countries had full socialism up to 1989. And you know very well that the growth problems in Hungary are quite new, have nothing to do with WWI or WWII and that there has been "immeasurable human loss" in many countries and people do not commit suiside there. And normal reaction on wars is what is called baby boom and not the opposite. And the demographic problems did not start after WII. Trying to establish a CONNECTION between the events and the present demography of HUNGARY is obvious non-sense. Do you have a reliable source provingthe opposite (i.e. not above the numbers of emmigrants, but about the CONNECTION)? You don't because there is no such connection. Juro 19:17, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

We are speaking about two different things: present demographic situation is similar to everywhere in Eastern Europe - natural decrease. But there is another problem: why the number of the Magyars stagnated in the whole 20th century when other peoples were growing? It seems that population was able to grow in the peaceful periods especially in 1960s and between the two wars but there were to much historic tragedy which annihilated the results of this growth in the first part of the century (and today we are losing the results of the 1960s). Of course the natural growth of the Magyars were lower than others (for example the Romanians or Serbs) even in the 19 century. Zello 21:48, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

You are partly right. The truth is that there was a much bigger (because historically earlier) decrease in the number of Hungary's inhabitants than in the neighbouring countries and since by far the most of Hungarians lives in Hungary this is the main reason for the result in question (and one does not to make any special analysis to come to this conclusion). Secondly, as I mentioned above there were similar events in other countries in Europe and they are not mentioned specifically anywhere (unless the article tries to imply that they are the cause for the current development, which this article is doing). Thirdly, the current article text (which you have changed) does not imply what you say here (read it once again), instead it implies that the current number of Hungarians IN HUNGARY is somehow relatively "too low" due to the Treaty of Trianon, WWII, 1956 etc. and that's the problem - that's not even a valid speculation, that's an error. Juro 05:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I will change the current text to indicate relatively low natural growth and periods of growth too. You wrote that the current trend is similar to other Eastern European countries - this is right. But I don't think that 20th century historical tragedies had not any impact on the number of the population. Of course the whole case is very difficult and there are reasons "out of rationality". For example Poles were decimated by history harder than Hungarians and they were able grow rapidly after the war - nobody knows why... There is something like "vitality" of a people, which is obviously weak in Hungarians as a nation, but this sounds too mystical :) Zello 11:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Last additions

I am sure the numbers added are very disputable; the Magyars outside "the Basin" are missing; what exactly is the "Basin"; why should the percentage in "the Basin" be decisive etc etc. If you really feel that this paragraph must be added, then cite the source at least...Juro 01:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Not quite.

• Fact #1: Magyars number in 1910 was 10.1, and 11.4 million in 2000
• Fact #2: Romanians, Croats, Slovenians have doubled, Slovaks, Serbs tripled theirs number.
• Fact #3: 100-200% population growth for non Magyars and only 15% for Magyars in the last century
• Fact #4: The population of Carpathian Basin today is around 33-34 million, 33-34% is still Hungarian
• Fact #5: It is not decisive but comparable
• Fact #6: Hungarian diaspora in the World is around 1.5-2 million

(2005.09.10) Again, cite your source (I am quite sure you have used some nationalist text) because these are quite important numbers, secondly taking the 1910 census as a basis is wrong (the number of Magyars was highly overstated), thirdly there are Magyars outside the "Basin" now, fourthly I still did not see the exact definition of "the Basin" (just the plain or what?), fifthly the neighbouring countries are not the cause of the high suicide rate and low birth rate in the country Hungary which is the main factor in this "problem", sixtly - ignoring what I have said above - if you are going to compare who "doubled/tripled" (numbers that always depend on what you take as a basis) then you should also show who tripled/doubled etc. before 1910 according to official Hungarian numbers in a clearly defined country called Kingdom of Hungary without any wars, border changes or other special circumstances (as compared to WWI etc.)...If I hadn't more important things to do now, I would look at those figures myself, maybe I will do that one day...Juro 16:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

(2005.09.11)

• I am not in the habit of using nationalist texts. No need for citation. They could be checked very easy.
  • If you do not have such a habit, then it will be no problem for you to cite your source. I am CALLING ON YOU for the third time now to cite your source, because you obviously do not carry such numbers in your head with you all the time (and if you say you do, then - you must admit - that's rather suspicious). As a remark: I have found a source saying that the number of Magyars at the time of the conquest was only 100,000 - 150,000 (you say up to 400,000): You see how important it is to cite the source in such cases. In fact, you can take virtually any number and you always find a source confirming it.
    • Well, here you are. I thought you dispute the 1900s datas.
      • Gesta Hungarorum gives the number of the Magyar clans at 108, and each of them could produce 2,000 armed men (seems quite dubious: 200,000 armed men = x 5 Magyar people = 1,000,000)
        • Using Gesta hungarorum for this is absolutely ridiculous, by the way...
      • Others, like Constantine, the Purple-born, wrote about some 50-60,000 warriors, which means x5 = 300,000 Magyars
      • There is a mutual understanding between Hungarian scholars accorind Magyars population. In their view around 350-5,000 Magyars entered the Carpathian Basin, in autumn 896--fz22 07:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No, this is a misunderstanding. I have mentioned the number only to show that there are various sources for population numbers. The difference will be lower, however, for the 20th century, of course. So, as you correctly assume, I want to see your source for the 1900s data...By the way, I do not "dispute" anything, I just want to see the source...Juro 20:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• OK, suppose was highly overstated ... but we are talking about absolute values. In 1910 10-11 million Magyars lived (according to Hungarian sources) in the CB and likewise 10-11 million Romanians in Transylvania, historical Moldova and Wallachia - verify this from authentic romanian sources if you want (HELP). Today these numbers are: 11 million Magyars and 22 million Romanians (~19 in Romania + 3 in the Republic of Moldova)

• Carphatian Basin definition given by C.A. Macartney: " The parts of it seem, indeed, designed by nature to form one harmonious whole. Through the heart of it the great river itself runs a course of nearly 600 miles, most of it through flat or flattish lands which form an oval plain, about 100,000 square miles in extent, 400 miles at its greatest width from west to east, 300 from north to south. This plain is surrounded by a ring of mountains, whose valleys converge on the central plain; of the rivers of Historic Hungary, only one flows north, to join the Vistula; one, like the Danube itself, cuts its own way through the Transylvanian Alps; all the rest join the Danube on its central course. The mountains, which in the north and east form an almost continuous wall, rarely broken, with the dense forests which up to recent times covered their slopes, form a natural defence for the plain, especially towards the east. The products of plain and mountain are mutually cornplementary, linking their inhabitants in a natural community of destiny."
  • OK...well, and now I would like to see a reliable source that is able to count the historic numbers of Magyars or of anybody on the territory defined in the above way (and there are 100 other definitions of the Carp. Basin of course)...Even if the source was able to do so, it was certainly not written by C.A. Macartney, was it?... I mean this is probably a joke...Probably you do not mean the Carpathian Basin, you mean the former territory of the Kingdom of Hungary (why don't you write that then??)...The point is that a source using such terminology as "the Basin" for (would-be) precise population numbers is rather suspicious and cannot be quite normal...Juro 02:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
    • So, then use Central Europe or Eastern Europe, or the teritory of the former Hunarian Kingdom or any other term you want.
    • What I WANT???????? But you have used the term in the text as a basic concept and used it as a basis for percentage numbers and for "everything! !!!...It is a difference from what territory you compute a percentage number or any number or are you going to deny basic mathematics? Is this how numbers are treated in Hungary nowadays or what??I suppose not...Another good reason to see the source...Juro 20:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• (HELP) I'm very interesting if there exists a Romanian population estimation in the Carpato-Danubiao-Pontic region for the last 1500-2000 year?--fz22 07:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Since Romania has demographers, there must be such estimates. I do not have them right now...You must ask a Romanian user...Juro 02:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

(2005.09.14)

• Unfortunatelly I cannot give you sources in english. Maybe you can try this instead. Romanians in Central-Europe or Hungarians in Central-Europe

According to this I claim that 10.065 million Magyars and 10.093 million Romanians lived in Central Europe in the early XX. century. These numbers rose to 22.045 million Romanians and 13.239 million Magyars until 1977-1980!

(1) And what about the remaining numbers?

• What other numbers?
  • OK. I see that you have no source, you just took several internet pages you liked (nobody knows whether they are compatible) and made your own conclusions. But that (namely original "research") is actually prohibited in the wikipedia. Ad What numbers? I have lost the overview as to what numbers are from which user, but you have added a lot of numbers about Magyars in Central Europe (haven't you?) and the above numbers are about Romania, so what about the rest??

(2) You must have a "normal" source, like a book, study, statistical tables...(I understand Hungarian, if that's the problem...)

• Splenind! I gave you two links in Hungarian. did you read it?
  • See above.

(3) And, as you can see you used the expression "Central Europe", so it's not the "Basin" anymore???Juro 11:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• The difference is negligable - demographically - for Hungarians: BASIN + ~100,000 Magyars = Central Europe. Of course this formula is not aplicable for Romanians. For them use Central Europe - 17,000,000 = BASIN instead. ;)--fz22 14:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
• Again, I am not sure whether we still have that sentence, but you originally wrote that Magyars made up XY% of the Basin population...Here anything related to the "Basin" is not negligible, of course...Juro 20:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

(2005.09.16) You've right. The original research is prohibited, but the calculation is not. OK, I accept mabe I'm wrong in some exact numbers. The Magyars number was not 10.065, but 10.199 million, in 1910. Therefore I've used 10-11 million instead. Similarly You have the choice to make your own research and if you find completelty different numbers please inform us.

And that two link I gave you is nothing else than a digitized form of a recently published book in Hungary about nations in Central(Köztes) Europe between 175X - 1980(?). Given an overall picture about what Hungarian historians think about recent past of the region.

The "Basin" question: if you make a comparasion between Romanians and Magyars it is negligable wheter Croatia/Slovenia/Burgenland is included into the Basin or not. Romanians percentage compared to Magyars percentage will not change ... somewhat decrease from 54% respectivelly 15% to 54-c and 15-c--fz22 07:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• It has clicked for me: here is the link about Magyars percentage in 1941 (only mangled Hungary): [1]

Depression

It was me who added the mention to depression. Naturally, no link can be established between the various historical events and the depression among Magyars, but my original formulation was "[...] all contributed to a general feeling of depression" (emphasis added). I don't think this is so wild a speculation, though it can probably be fine-tuned. That the percentage of depressed people is unusually high among Magyars, in turn, is pretty much of an established fact; I can't cite anything off the top of my head, but I remember having seen studies showing this, of which the high number of suicides is but a well-measurable effect. I suppose that this has more to do with the people in Hungary than with Magyars in general, but as to the demographic consequences, the two are more and more correlated. Which brings me to the point of mentioning this at all: it was not to say that the number of Magyars is anyhow "too low", but simply to provide some context for the demographic estimate of 2050, a quite low but still correct one for a group today numbering over 11 million. It is, of course, more of a speculation that the low number of births is (at least partly) due to depression, though I wouldn't be surprised to see that someone has already established that link.

As for Magyarisation, I still maintain that the words I removed are superfluous and have no other effect than being less concise, but I can live with the current version (with "largely" added, so "solely" not implied).

KissL 09:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I can only repeat that you cannot be serious if you think that Trianon or WWII has something to do with the current and future demographic development (until 2050?????!) in Hungary...It could have had (but it had not, of course) something to do with the general demographic development in the interwar period and in the 50s/60s, but the demographice development started just AFTER these periods (the population of Hungary started to decrease only around 1980 and decreased by more than 1 million (!!) persons until 2003)...How can you even contemplate such totally illogical things in obvious contradiction with reality??? If we start to write such non-sense here then you can really write anything that comes to your mind, that will yield the same in the end...Juro 02:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You're not getting my point. I'm not contemplating a direct connection between Trianon and the demographic development. What I am assuming is that Trianon is one of the reasons behind depression, and that depression is one of the reasons behind the demographic development in Hungary. Both assumptions are common sense. I didn't force any direct connection between Trianon and demographics into the article.

And as for when that development started - there has been an absolutely constant decrease in the number of children per possible parents since before WWII. In particular, the population decrease that started in the 1980s had been on schedule for at least two decades, because already in the 1960s the fertility rate dropped low enough so that there were less children than possible parents despite the so-called "Ratkó era", which (precisely in the 1960s when this trend first alarmed the political elite) saw numerous efforts to increase the willingness of the population to have children, and did in fact produce an outstanding (but still insufficient) "wave" of childbirth for a few years.

There is more to demographics than increase or decrease in a population - there are lots of dependencies on age structure, because death rates are more or less determined by the number of aged people, while birth rates are determined by both the number of reproductive women and a set of socioeconomical constraints. So to state that the current development started around 1980 would be a huge mistake.

In view of this, what are the "totally illogical" things I am contemplating "in obvious contradiction with reality?"

KissL 09:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

These are well-known things, the problem is I am not criticising the statement that someone was allegedly depressed, I am criticising the whole part of the text, which MAKES the above connection. And I repeat this for the 5th time already that the text

-was saying after you have edited it (as you claim above)

-and partly it is still saying

exactly what I am saying above (meaning it is still illogical), because even if we assumed that there was a demographic change IN HUNGARY say right at the time of Trianon or right in 1945, it then still continues and intesifies and is similar to developments in other countries, which itself shows that it has nothing to do with Trianon etc. and every demographer knows it. Finally, actually I am not interested in what you or anybody personally thinks, wanted to write (but did not) or things like that, I am only interested in having a text here that at least does not contain lies (wanted or not) -given that the article is far from ideal anyway- and that's what I am talking about here all the time. But Zello said above he would write a more precise text, so let'see (hopefully)... Ah yes, I mentioned the above decrease only to show what a difference it is whether one looks at numbers say of 1910-1970 or at numbers of 1910-2003 - and what is the (huge) difference, i.e. the "problem"? Answer: The internal development in Hungary. But what does the text imply? The problem of the TOTAL number of Magyars in an undefined "Basin" (including Hungary) lies abroad and in WWI and WWII. This is what the text says now, I do not know how to explain it in simpler terms. Juro 20:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the new section about demographics. All of my data came from Ignác Romsics's new book (History of Hungary in the 20th century). Sorry KissL but I deleted the expression "depression". However I think the last paragraph (from Fz222) needs a little upgrading (datas etc) in any case and there you can find a place for this thought. Zello 00:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Where are the new numbers from? I don't think that Romsics made mistakes in such an important question... Zello 09:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the sentence because of two reasons:

• The new numbers were dubious, and I mentioned a good, widely recognised source for my datas, so I don't see any reason not to stick to the former version.

• I think it important to indicate the major population losses of the 20th century. After all 0,5-1 million people maters something - even in a demographic point of view. Zello 20:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with you (see above /Last changes/) The population of Hungary was 7.9 out of which 7.1 million were Magyars in 1910 (the article is about Magyars not Germans, Jewish, Romas etc) 'til 1941 this number rose to ~8,500,000 in Hungary plus 2.5 - 3,000,000 million in neighbouring countries and to 10,500,000 in Hungary + 2,500,000 million in n.c. in 1980.--fz22 07:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it is not good idea to exclude nationalities from population estimates because they were part of the Hungarian nation. But yes, in this sense you are right, I looked up the numbers in the Romsics book:

• 1920 7,9 million - Magyar 7,1 million
• 1941 9,3 million - Magyar 8,6 million
• 1980 10,7 million - Magyar 10,4 million (officially) - 9,8 million with estimated 800 000 Gypsy

We should decide wether we use these numbers or we speak about the total population of Hungary. Kissl, Juro?

• As for the other: the victims and emigrants of the 20th century were mostly Magyars in all sense. Hungarian soldiers at the Don, emigrants after 1956 etc. Jews were always counted before as Magyars so its not fair to exclude them at this point (were they "good" in the census of 1910?). Zello 11:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, that's true, but we are talking here about the 1100 year old Magyars people and not about political nation of Hungary. In the retrospect of 1100 year of Magyar history the appearance of Magyarized Jewish people after 1850 (around 70,000) and their dramatic dissapearance in 1944 (they numbered around 800,000 in 1910) was a chapter although very tragic chapter of Hungary and not Magyars history. Demograpically speaking of course. Similarly the Germans. They were never counted as Magyars ...--fz22 12:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

1100 year old Magyar people almost doesn't exist in genetical terms. You won't find anybody in the country whose all ancestor came here with Árpád. Magyars absorbed an immense number of other peoples in their history, and Jews were one of them. As I said before 1944 they were counted as Magyars in every census... But I won't fight for this question, this topic is too heated now.

• No need for fighting. Take a look over this: Jewish people in Eastern Europe--fz22 12:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It makes no sense to speak Magyars as a whole after Trianon. Of course this is one nation, but the demographic process were not the same in Hungary and in the neighbouring countries. Zello 12:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. Assimilation and emmigration was typical of minority Magyars. But the negative population growth rate affects the whole Central Europe with minor differences. (1990 for Romanians / but 1977-1980 for Magyars in Transylvania / 1980 for Magyars in Hungary) --fz22 12:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

OK. I can only say that I largely agree with Zello. The current version is quite in order, provided the numbers are correct (I wished I had the time and mood to check them...). Maybe it would be really helpful to also point out the development of other nationalities in Hungary to show that these numbers are tied to Hungary as a country, but on the other hand this article is called "Magyars", so I don't know...Juro 22:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Fast, slow, what?

I don't understand this new sentence from the anonymous contributor. What's this? Zello 15:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I deleted these chart with obviously incorrect data: there isn't any country like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia today, there isn't 200 000 Magyars in Russia (probably it was a mistake for Ukraine) and I think it's not a good idea to make such estimations about Magyars in the US or Canada where assimilation is very fast. Zello 08:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not kidding, you must update your chart because it's out of date and incorrect. Zello 20:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Good job on updating my estimates. I had my total estimation pretty close though. Anyway, do you like the image or would you want me to make a new one? ..

For me it's OK. But if you make longer contributions, register a user name because man sees anonymous editors with mistrust. Zello 19:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Theories about the origin of Magyars

It is a debated issue, but to give a complete picture I think it is worth adding Alinei and Krantz, since their work is peer-reviewed scholarly work, and it is not likely that they have a pro-Hungarian nationalist bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.27.161.101 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a page about Hungarian prehistory where you should mention this kind of speculations. But THIS page about the Magyars contains only facts and widely accepted scientific theories. Zello 21:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Facts in history? Sorry, but in that subject everything is more or less speculation, in particular if it happened thousand or thousands of years ago. The problem with the Hungarian Pre-History page is that it seems to be the page of a single person's opinion, moreover it includes non peer-reviewed and unscientific speculation. Thus Alinei and Krantz do not belong there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.27.161.101 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

To 129.27.161.101 - Read WP:NOR and you'll see that this doesn't belong here. Besides, think about all the non-experts who will click on a link saying Hungarian somewhere. This sure is not the kind of info they will want to know. (BTW you can, and should, sign your posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.) KissL 10:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to develop Hungarian prehistory page a place where every "alternative" theory about the origin of the Magyars is collected and reviewed. Of course everything about the ancient period is more or less speculation but here it's better to stick to the "official" thesis. Zello 11:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear KissL

Forgive my harsh judgment, but I think your reasoning is somewhat flawed. The work of Krantz and Alinei are not original research in the sense it is described in WP:NOR. Alinei is an established linguist whose celebrated continuity theory is considered fundamental. The late Krantz was an established anthropologist, who was considered an expert on human evolution, and while his "bigfoot" material received much media attention (due to its sensational nature), his expertise in his own field was never questioned, not to mention that even in the bigfoot case (not entirely his field) he was never disproven. Furthermore the article gives space to the Sumerian theory (which sounds like it may be original research) without citation, whereas I have given Krantz's book and Alinei's as the citation. The non-experts should be aware that there is a debate, and I think as long as it is only mentioned but the main emphasis is not placed on them it is not in any way misleading. More misleading is to place Sumerian and other theories without citation, dismiss them also without citation and exclude the theories (even if somewhat marginal) which were proposed by respected experts in various fields. Your claim about redundance is somewhat questionable as well...

It is also notable the Alinei is often referred to by Slavic historians since his continuity theory refutes the notion of Slavic presence in Europe only agter the 6th century. While Alinei is not cited on the page describing Slavic peoples it appears that it is his theories that are presented there, so there is really no reason to exclude them from here either. But I guess the idea is that Slavs are OK, Magyars should be excluded whenever possible. It would be great if Eastern Europe grew up!

Thank you for the suggestion regarding the signature. I do not have an account yet...

Dear Zello,

There is a problem with alternative theories mixed with alternative theories. While I do not want to exclude work not necessarily ratified by the experts, but there may be reasons for not grouping together something like Alinei or Krantz with the work of fringe nationalists.

Februus129.27.161.101 11:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

For me both theories seems to be wild enough and none of them is new. Etruscan-Hungarian relationship was a popular idea in the 2 half of the 19 century. There are a lot of authors who propagates that Magyars inhabited the Carpathian Basin even in the Stone Age. It's interesting that there are non-Hungarian followers of this speculation but this is simply out of the normal scholarly discussion. Zello 14:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)