Jump to content

Talk:Hungarians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.183.245.214 (talk) at 12:17, 27 June 2016 (Mator - Magyar relationship). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Otto of Freising

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

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?

Hello Adrian! St. Michael's Church, Cluj-Napoca is a church used only by Hungarian people and it is the church of the Hungarian Catholic church! Beat that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PagerAntal (talk • contribs) 06:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • I don't have much to add to Iadrian yu's thoughtful remarks, except for two observations:
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Horribile dictu hundreds of thousands (more than 300,000 people). --Voxfax (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I can explain this a bit. In slovak language there is a difference between "Uhorsko" and "Maďarsko". Uhorsko refers to Kingdom of Hungary (1000-1919), Maďarsko refers to modern Hungary after World War I (including Kingdom of Hungary 1920-1946). In slovak historical texts is term "uhorský" used if the person was born in Kingdom of Hungary in that era, while is highlighted if he had slavic or hungarian (magyar) ethnicity (usually mixed). Look for Matej Bel. His mother spoke hungarian, his father probably spoke slavic dialect from Očová, 17th century (not a modern slovak language). English has no word to distict between "Uhorský" and "Maďarský" while term "Hungary" is closer to "Uhorsko". Hungarians refer to their homeland simply by word "Magyarország", regardless of era - similarly as English do. The difference is similar as in case of "British", "English"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offler55 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me Mr.Peabody, why did "Mad'arsko" payed all debts and warranted any obligations made by "Uhorsko"? That's a made up difference and it made up by slovak nationalists. See Hungarian vs. Magyar above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.132.184.37 (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Nicholas/Southeastern European/Afro-Eurasian/.../.../... is a banned user. His/her apparently strong Anti-Hungarian bias is demonstrated by the "1.4. Personal beliefs" section here [12], and his/her edit summary here [13]. Please ignore his/her remarks. Borsoka (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Biologically, the population around 1000 AD in Hungary was made up almost exclusively of Europeans" - maybe it would be useful to include the percentage of Hungarians in Hungary. There is a 66% estimation of Hungarians for the the year 900, but I am not sure if there are such data for the year 1000 79.117.177.16 (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid it would be just a "war of percentages". The main problem is scholars can not establish (yet) which bones "carried" the Hungarian vernacular. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Madjars

Sorry, I do not understand the logic. (1) There is an ethnic group in Central Asia which is different from all the neighboring (=Central Asian) ethnic groups (2) This ethnic group seems to be related to the Hungarians (=a Central European ethnic group) (3) Why do this similarity between a non-typical Central Asian ethnic group and the Hungarians prove that the Hungarians came from Central Asia? Should we also assume that New Orleans is the Urheimat of the Chinese people?????? (There are people of Chinese origin living in New Orleas; many of them can be distinguished from the non-Chinese citizens of New Orleans; but they are similar to people living in China.) Borsoka (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should ask Pamjav Horolma from ELTE :). The characteristics of the recent Hungarian samples are close to a Kazakh population. It is debatable if the genetic makeup of the Majdars is typically Central Asian or not (IMO).Fakirbakir (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway we should take her work seriously (just check her publication list link). Fakirbakir (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Bíró (who is president of pseudo scientific Hungarian Turan society,and Jobbik Supporter) and originally Central Asian Horolma is not realiable source. Read the critics here: (from page 3) http://ahea.net/admin/?path=admin/modules/journals/4/journalarticles/25/journalarticleattachments&request=modules/journals/journalarticleattachments&download=83&ajax=1

Madi-jar (not madjar!!) ethnonym means friends of Mohamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.94.66 (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is your own POV. Do not delete reliable sources (Who cares about Biro's POV? His !personal! opinion, is not cited in the article). "Central Asian origin is not supported by academic researches"--- It is my sentence from page of Hungarian Turanism I was who added this statement to the lead because of NPOV issues. Unfortunately this statement is not in the cited source and actually my addition was quite inaccurate. For instance, the region southward from Ural (part of the scholars assume the Hungarian homeland between Caspian sea and Ural Mountains) or the grasslands in present-day northern Kazakhstan can be labelled as "Central Asia". Anyway, Pamjav Horolma's researches (pls check her publication list, you can find newer genetic researches from her in connection with Hungarian population) are not entirely against Finno-Ugric origin, cited from Zegernyei: "Az új genetikai vizsgálatok érdekes irányokba vihetik a finnugor őstörténet kutatását is. Erre vonatkozóan figyelemre méltók a madjarok vizsgálatában részt vett kutatók publikációi (lásd a Budapesti Orvosszakértői Intézet honlapján). Pamzsav Horolma és Németh Endre januárban elhangzott előadása megfelelő történeti szituációba helyezi a genetikai folyamatokat. Nyelvészeknek azonban nem biztos, hogy tetszene, mivel a Pusztay János-féle őshaza-koncepciót támogatja" (nyest.hu, 2012). Moreover, I do not think that Istvan Fodor's and Peter Hajdu's opinions are irrelevant. Istvan Fodor works at the Finno-Ugrian department, ELTE. He has nothing to do with "Turanism"......Fakirbakir (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. You did not read the article! This is a Turanist politically motivated agenda. The madi-jar (means: friends of Mohamed) expedition was lead by András Zsolt Bíró, the president of Hungarian Turan Society, who closely related to Jobbik party. Just watch this, When Jobbik president awarded him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yZBF4no9EpA#t=169 They purpose was clear, to find a "turanian brother nation" in Central Asia instead of Ural region (because there are only turkic speaking "turan" nations). Pamjav Horolma is a low rank researcher (she is just an academic doctor, where a simple PHD exam enough, so she is not real academics professor, not honorary or corresdondence REAL member of the academy.) Her ancestry came from Central Asian turkic territories from the Soviet Union, so it is not wonder her prepossession. Moreover, mpdern Hungarian population contain more than 11 Y haplogroup markers, and they examined only an R1a1 varians, many Central European slavic countries have higher ratio of that marker than modern Hungarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.94.66 (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about "turanists"? The article cites a study from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Nobody mentions Zsolt Biro's own belief... You just do not like the content of the study, Wikipedia:I just don't like it.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Even the samples were collected by Bíró, and the madi-jar expedition was his idea. American Journal of Physical Anthropology does not matter, they didn't examined the results. PLEASE read the cited article before you write. Pamjav Horolma have never been collected sample, he used Bíró's samples.

""Following this, Bíró and his team went to visit the Madijars and were greeted enthusiastically as long-lost relatives. Bálint points out that Bíró and his associates referred to this clan not by their real name, Madijars, but by a name they gave them: Madjars. Bíró and the members of his team managed to obtain y-DNA samples from a group of Madijar men and eventually compared the results with the y-DNA of another rather small group of Hungarian men. To make a long story short, Bíró and his associates came up with the conclusion that genetic evidence also supported their conclusion about the relatedness of Madijars and Magyars. What upset Bálint even more is that these geneticists — who, according to Bálint, had no qualifications as historians, linguists or ethnographers — on the basis of such limited evidence suggested that the ancient homeland of Hungarians must have been in Central Asia. The writer of these lines cannot but sympathize with Bálint’s view. The y-DNA tests done on Madijar men indicate that they are so distant genetically from Hungarians that any relationship between the two peoples is inconceivable. Crudely put, the argument used by Bíró and company sounds like this: the Madijars are genetically extremely distant from all other populations, and they are very distant from Hungarians: therefore they must be the closest relatives of Hungarians. The major question that all this leaves for the writer of these lines (a question Bálint does not ask explicitly): how did Bíró and his team succeed in publishing an article on this subject in a major western scientific journal? The answer might be, and Bálint hints at this, that the study contributed to the knowledge of the y-DNA of a Central Asian population, when this kind of knowledge is very limited and therefore precious.""

Madi-jar nő fényképe, Bíró kedvenc weoldaláról a kurucról (ahol megjelennek véleményei) http://kuruc.info/galeriaN/egyeb/zspannonolimp55_resize.jpg http://szankinfo.hu/hir1/kep2012/0814_kurultaj_002.jpg

Itt meg a mad-jár tézsvírekkel a Bíró: http://kurultaj.hu/wp-content/uploads/Yerlan-Idrissov-Biro-Andras.jpg

Ugye mennyire hasonlítanak a magyarokra? Kb annyira mint a fekete afrikaiak vagy az ausztrál bennszülöttek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.94.66 (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your cited (pdf)text is Dreiszinger's own POV (Is he a geneticist?). Pamjav's study is debated among scholars (I can tell you Rasko's work is also disputed among researchers). If you have reliable source about this matter feel free to add it to the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not reliable source, based on political agenda, and archaism (like turanism) It was nothing more than the original project of Bíró András. I must repeat these sentences again: "how did Bíró and his team succeed in publishing an article on this subject in a major western scientific journal? The answer might be, and Bálint hints at this, that the study contributed to the knowledge of the y-DNA of a Central Asian population, when this kind of knowledge is very limited and therefore precious."

Csanad Balint does not agree with Pamjav's results. That is all. Actually, Balint is not a geneticist. He did not disproof any of Pamjav's results.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]


The central Asian Horolma and Bíró is one team, read about it on the website of turanist Kurultáj:: http://kurultaj.hu/2013/10/dns-vizsgalat-es-eredetkutatas-interju-biro-andras-zsolttal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.94.66 (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the soviet (central asian) origin Pamjav write an article from Bíró's work and samples. Turanism and madi-jars are the same: (political agenda) http://richpoi.com/cikkek/kultura/dagesztanbol-es-azerbajdzsanbol-is-erkeznek-kuldottek-az-idei-kurultajra.html http://www.old.szentkoronaradio.com/ostortenet

Modu Chanyu szócikk angol változatában - mely Modu kánról (i.e. 209-i.e. 174), a Xiongnuk (~hunok) egyik nagy kánjáról szól - találtam egy utalást, miszerint a Mator emberek és nyelv a magyar távoli rokona volna, s mindkettő neve Modu kán nevéből eredhet. Az erre vonatkozó idézet: "Another suggestion connects it with the name of the Magyar (Mad'ar) royal tribe of the Hungarians (匈牙利) and with their distant relatives the Mators, now extinct." Vagyis: "Más javaslatok összekötik őt (Modu kánt) a magyarok nevével (Mad'ar) és az ő távoli rokonaikkal, a mára kihalt matorokkal." Nem tudom, miért nem tanultunk erről az iskolában, illetve miért nem emlékezett meg egyetlen magyar őstörténész sem a matorokról műveikben, de egy mondat a magyarsághoz fűződő esetleges viszonyukról igencsak ide kívánkozna. Talán valaki rálel erre és talál forrást hozzá, és beszerkeszti a cikkbe. 81.183.245.214 (vita) 2016. június 27., 14:13 (CEST)

Do not use outdated antrropology tales from communism

http://www.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/tkt/ostortenet-nemzettudat/ch05.html

The fantasy Turanid race was born as a political agenda.

http://www.nyest.hu/hirek/turani-gondolatok

án, nem kis mértékben a Turáni Szövetség 1931-es újraalakulása következtében. Koponyaalkat- és vércsoportvizsgálatokat szorgalmaztak annak érdekében, hogy meghatározhassák a „turáni faj” sajátosságait. Ekkor virágzott a turanizmusnak az a változata, amely szerint a Nyugat arra törekszik, hogy a megváltoztathatatlanul ázsiai magyarok kulturális és lelki „fajiságát” kiöljék, ezért a németektől és árja fajelméletüktől sem várhatunk jót, az igazi önmagunkra találást csak a turáni népekhez való visszatalálás jelentheti. Az irányzat fő ideológusa Túrmezei László, a Turáni Szövetség alvezére volt.

Sorry, I do not understand why your above remark is relevant in the debate. Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Genetics"

This source is obviously a nationalist/esoteric blog, and not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Ethno-genetic (i.e. racial) categories like "East-Baltic" or "Nordoid" were postulated in the 1950s. They are not used by modern science. Human genetics and anthropology have developed a lot during the last decades. In their cited 1976 work, authors István Balogh, Péter Hajdú still assume that "Turanid, Pamirian and (...) 'Andronovo' races" were taxa of the human species, a view that has been disproved and is not held by any serious geneticist or anthropologist today. This is totally outdated and obsolete. --RJFF (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The genetic origin of the original Hungarians is of interest. As such, it's unfortunate that the issue gets swallowed up by local politics and cultural differences. What seems strange to me, as an outsider, is that it's clear sitting on the Budapest metro that modern Hungarians are almost entirely genetically European and the only Hungarian speakers that look at all Asian are the Roma. Nigej (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have never said that it was not of interest and I have not deleted the "ethnic affiliations and genetic origins" section as such, just the parts based on the outdated and obsolete folk taxonomic racial theories of the early and mid-20th century or the ideas of pseudo-scientific hobby geneticists that have been disproven by modern human genetics. Contemporary genetic research tends to categorise the genetic origin of populations by Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups while racial categories based on phenotypes rather than genotypes (like "East-Baltic", "Nordoid", "Turanoid" etc.) are deprecated. Compare Y-DNA haplogroups in European populations. --RJFF (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the current article is that it starts off in the present tense ("are a nation and ethnic group who speak Hungarian and are primarily associated with Hungary. There are around 13.1–14.7 million Hungarians, of whom 8.5–9.8 million live in today's Hungary") and then spends a lot of time talking about the original Hungarians. The introduction tends to imply that the main determining feature of a "Hungarian" is that they speak the Hungarian language. This is probably true, in the sense that the article talks about Hungarians. I can see there are bits about how we got from the original Hungarians to the modern Hungarians but it's pretty obscure stuff at times. Honestly, the "Ethnic affiliations and genetic origins" section is pretty much unintelligible. The "ethnic affiliations" bit (the language and culture, I suppose) makes a certain amount of sense (eg assimilation) but, as for the "genetic origins", sadly the current article does little to further my understanding. What we need in this section is 1) some discussion about the genetic origins of the original Hungarians, 2) some discussion about the genetic origins of modern Hungarians 3) some discussion of how we got from there to here 4) some history of this topic explaining why we've gone from eg Turanoid to eg Haplogroups. We need to remember that this is an article about "Hungarians" and as such is likely to be read by the general English-speaking reader interested in Hungary, who probably thinks a Hungarian is someone who comes from Hungary (the normal English usage). Too much talk about Haplogroups is not useful for such a reader and so the article needs simplified summaries as well as the detailed stuff. Overall, a very poor article. Nigej (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Ethnic affiliations and genetic origins" section is unintelligible, of course, because this subject is highly debated in scientific circles. Your first and second suggestions do not make any sense because these topics seem to be unanswerable at the moment (IMO).Fakirbakir (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be "highly debated in scientific circles" but it seems to me that the main problem is that it's also highly debated by people who know little or nothing about the topic and have a nationalistic view to push. I propose that we delete the whole section if the scientific knowledge is as hopeless as you imply. Nigej (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Pseudoscientific and esoteric theories about the origin of the Hungarians have a long history and are still very popular in Hungary, especially Hungarian Turanism, but also even bolder claims that Hungarians descend from Scythians or Sumerians; claims that are very hard to prove but are nevertheless believed by many Hungarians, including "intellectuals". It is obvious that Hungarians are not ethnically related to any neighbouring people which makes the question of their origin so dubious and interesting. Their language is obviously Finno-Ugric, but they are not necessarily genetically related to the other Finno-Ugric peoples. Some Hungarian ultranationalists even find it offensive to be categorised with the other Finno-Ugric peoples because they consider the Hungarians to be more valuable. They have therefore looked for alternative theories. The Turanism theory is very unlikely (or even disproved) from the perspective of modern human genetics. The most common Y-DNA haplogroups among Hungarians seem to be R1b, R1a and I2a, all of which are common in other European peoples too, but rather uncommon among Turks, not to speak of Mongolians. There are no living Scythians or Sumerians, so a comparison with their genome is impossible. Modern Hungarians are probably a mix of different populations who have migrated to the Pannonian Basin at different times of the history and have mixed to become one people, like most other modern European peoples (French, English, Germans, etc). But this is of course very disappointing for ultranationalists who dream of a pure Hungarian "race" and will therefore reject the findings of modern science and cling to their outdated pseudoscientific theories. --RJFF (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's time to end this discussion. "R1b, R1a ...rather uncommon among Turks" .....FYI, the R1b ratio is very high in Bashkirs [14]....Or take a look at this map [15]. You would have to be very careful with this subject. Anyway, the scholars don't even know for sure where the "Hungarian homeland" was.... There are a lot of theories.... Don't misunderstand me, I talk about Hungarian academics and NOT about Turanist fantasts. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its time to end it. This obsession with haplogroups is completely pointless. This is not an article about obscure genetics, its about "Hungarians". The whole article needs to be rewritten. It's terrible. The only things that the casual reader is likely to discover about the topic, before they give up in despair, is that Hungarians come from Hungary and speak Hungarian. Surely Hungarians deserve better than that. Nigej (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the origin of the Hungarians would advise book by Peter Benjamin Golden An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East (1992), with pg. 258-262 exclusively about the Hungarians. As well, the often public misunderstanding of the term "Turk/Turkic" for Mongoloids and their haplogroups really needs to end. The recent studies on Turks in Central Asia and Eastern Europe confirmed the extreme Y-DNA heterogeneity. For example, the Haplogroup R1a: Kyrgyz 63.5%, Uzbeks 27%, Kazan Tatars 20%, Gagauz people 19%, Kazakhs 15%, Turkmens 7%, or the Haplogroup R1b: Bashkirs 43%, Tuymaznsky Tatars 16%, Gagauz people 12.5%, Uzbeks 11,1%, Kazakhs 7%, and so on. Yes, the lack of Haplogroup N among Hungarians is intriguing, but it cannot be confirmed any secure conclusion from this data, especially relating Hungarians with Sarmatians, that lacks even further evidence.
Yes, there are Mongoloids features among the Huns, Pannonians Avars and other tribes of Turkic extraction who came to Europe from Western Eurasia, but in those features, ethnogenesis and its influence is often in a larger minority than the cultural influence. Those tribes weren't "pure", they were confederations of newly arrived tribes, which were already mixed, with the conquered and assimilated tribes. Also the name to the confederation was given by the most politically strong clan or tribe, and that in those confederations under the specific ethnonyms should be differentiated the "ruling elite" (who is related to the ethnonym) and the "subordinated majority" (who don't need originally be related culturally, linguistically, and ethnogenetically with the "elite"). It's a complex topic, and perhaps as a guide would advise Golden book which tends to be quite neutral and have right stand, and see the rewritten article of the Bulgars. Good luck.--Crovata (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding genetic origins

From what I understand from this article, is it correct to say that Hungarians are descendants of a preexisting populace who were conquered by Asiatic influenced (?) Magyar tribes who remained the upper class before they were completely assimilated into the wider population around 1000 AD but left behind their language and culture, comparable to the Normans in England? And that the population was further supplemented by migration from neighbouring Germanic and Slavic settlers? (Esterhase (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

You're probably roughly correct. It's a shame that the article doesn't provide a clearer explanation of their origin. I would say the closer comparison is with the invading Anglo-Saxons whose language we now use albeit with many new loan words coming from the Normans and other sources and 1500 years of change. Hungarian has many loan words too, eg the months coming directly from the Latin. There's also comparisons with King Arthur since some Hungarians like to look back on a largely mythical golden age of their supposed warrior ancestors in mid-Asia somewhere. Nigej (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot provide a clearer explanation of their origin because there is no clear explanation at the moment. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then the article needs to say that in a simple way. Nigej (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#The_necessity_of_galleries_of_personalities_in_the_infoboxes Hahun (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The result of this RfC is that there is consensus to remove portrait galleries from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups. The main reasons given for this decision are that, lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people. This also applies to articles about other than ethnic groups, such as nationalities, because the discussion has shown that the same arguments apply to these groups as well." Nigej (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nigej, I think you should realize that there is no consensus on this subject: that is why your edits are reverted. I will not revert your edits, but I am sure, that during the following months, the new "consensual" policy will give rise to many conflicts. Borsoka (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that there's not unanimity on this subject but "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity" and the result of the RfC is 100% clear. Stubbornly trying to get your own way after a decision you don't like has been made, is not the way to proceed. (i'm not referring to you here but to the editors). There are other alternatives, like putting the pictures somewhere else in the article. Nigej (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the array as a gallery in the main space of the article clearly goes against the spirit of the consensus reached in the RfC and adds to the utter bloat of images on this page. Just as in the RfC discussion, the gallery is pure POV, with no standard employed to determine whom should be included. This page is basically reduced to a picture-book, with 74 images in an article of 50k. This is simply a work-around of a consensus that Borsoka apparently refuses to accept. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this discussion about the implementation that well established policy here. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very extensive discussion. Can you be more specific as to where consensus approves of simply moving the arrays to another part of the article? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought that the short discussion cannot rise any problem to you who obviously have deep knowledge of the much much longer discussion of the new policy that you are referring to. Nevertheless, here are the relevant remarks: [16], [17], [18]. Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These remarks do not establish consensus for simply moving the array into the body. One says that you may attempt to do so and see if it is accepted, and the intervening comment to this remark raises precisely the problem I am raising here. There is still no standard for what should be included, the selection is prima facie OR, and it merely moves the problem from one part of the page to another. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Nevertheless, in lack of a special policy, general rules should be applied. The articles about the individuals say that they were or are Hungarians, consequently this information seems to be verifiable. Who do you think was not or is not Hungarian and what is the reliable source stating this? Who do you think should be added or removed and why? Borsoka (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Hungarians make up 1/500th of the world population, it seems to me that the article ought to be aimed at the 499 non-Hungarians rather than the 1 Hungarian. As such a gallery of portraits of people they've never heard of seems of little use to me. What they want is some intelligible information about Hungarians. Sadly the current article will disappoint them. Nigej (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. The article should be significantly improved. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and there is still the issue that the article that says, for instance, that Ferenc Puskás is Hungarian is simply saying he was from Hungary (as per normal English usage) and not that he was of Hungarian ethnicity or part of the Hungarian people. Which is why the article should be renamed to avoid such confusion in the future. Nigej (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
and the gallery is now well down the page and not right at the top. Most readers of the article won't get past the first paragraph or two and finding a paragraph like "During the 4th millennium BC, the Uralic-speaking peoples who were living in the central and southern regions of the Urals split up. Some dispersed towards the west and northwest and came into contact with Iranian speakers who were spreading northwards. From at least 2000 BC onwards, the Ugrian speakers became distinguished from the rest of the Uralic community. Judging by evidence from burial mounds and settlement sites, they interacted with the Andronovo culture." will certainly send them elsewhere. Nigej (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the gallery into its own section ignores the spirit of the RfC. This isn't a game of Whac-A-Mole. The closer of the RfC noted "lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people." The gallery needs to be removed, post-haste. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to my answers here ([19]) and here ([20]). I suggest that you should not take unilateral actions without a clear consensus. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you are simply trying to localize the discussion to get around the consensus found in the RfC (which is in no manner "strange" as it was open for over a month and widely engaged). You are simply moving the very same problems addressed there to a different part of the article. It is clear at this point that you do not have consensus for retaining the images, and I urge you not to re-add the gallery without gaining support. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Please read the "consensual" policy. It applies to galleries in infoboxes. Borsoka (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it does. But, the points undermining the galleries in the infoboxes also undermine the galleries in their own section in the article. Must we really start a whole new RfC just so the word "infobox" is removed from the question? Do you really think the Wikipedia community is going to be happy to have to slog through such pedantry in order to remove a gallery that blatantly obviously should not be there? Come on. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. My questions are the following: (1) can pictures of individuals be displayed in articles about ethnic groups? (2) if they can, why cannot they be collected into galleries? Borsoka (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If my understanding is correct, you say that individuals cannot be displayed either, because "it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people.". Am I wrong? Borsoka (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Hammersoft states, you appear to be trying to reopen the RfC locally. The same difficulties that have already been discussed there are present here. The selection of subjects in the gallery is bound to be OR and will only lead to continued conflict. The issue also exacerbates the problem raised below regarding too many images that do not add value to the text. It would be of far greater value to develop the text of this article than to add to the image bloat with an arbitrary selection of portraits. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that I am a pig-headed editor who cannot accept a wonderful consensus. However, I have been only desperately trying to understand it. Please help me: can the pictures of individuals be displayed in articles about ethnic groups, according to that well-established consensus? Borsoka (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When individuals are specifically discussed and their relevance described, an image complements the text. But an arbitrary gallery of individuals used simply to represent the group as a whole adds little value and invariably breeds conflict over which individuals should be included. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Laszlo. If there is a specific reason to include the person, then sure. Otherwise; arbitrary collections of images of people add nothing to the article. In fact, it's possible to conclude they actively damage the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I understand. If an individual is mentioned in the text, his/her picture can be displayed, because the text cannot give rise to conflicts. However, galleries collecting the pictures of individuals are forbidden, because they are dangerous. What a nice consensus! I must obey to it. Borsoka (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. The basic reasons for not including the gallery "are that, lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people." Nigej (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excess images

I have added the "This article contains too many pictures, charts or diagrams for its overall length" maintenance tag to this article.
The entire article only has a "readable prose size" of 2445 words, but has 75 images, which IMHO is excessive. Furthermore, the images are not being used to illustrate and/or "add value" to the text.
The policies and guidelines are:- WP:LAYIM "Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in." and WP:NOTGALLERY "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" - Arjayay (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hungarians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Hungarians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarians&oldid=727209948"