From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hungary (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Romania  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Gyimesi Csángók[edit]

I realize this is an extremely hair-splitting comment, but on the map of ethnic Hungarian repartition in Hargita/Kovászna/Maros, there is a spillover into Bakó megye, specifically the Gyimes pass/upper Tatros valley. In my experience most people in Felsölok, Középlok (Hargita megye) and especially Bükk and Nagy-Gyimes (Bakó megye) consider themselves Csángó rather than Székely (although they gladly admit they are descended from Székely who crossed the pass several hundred years ago). Any advice on an elegant, unobtrusive way to dispel the idea that all the Hungarians on the map are Székely? Hubacelgrand 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A little addendum. The previous name of Judeţul Harghita was Csík megye. Judeţul Covasna originally was Háromszék megye. Judeţul Mureş previoulsy was Maros-Torda megye. Judeţul Bacau was outside the old Hungarian border but had Hungarian name: Bákó megye. Gyimesbükk presently has the name of Ghimeş-Făget (a translated name).

Other opinion: Ioan Aurel Pop, The Ethno-Confessional Structure of Medieval Transylvania and Hungary. Cluj Napoca, 1994 (bulletin of the Center for Transilvanian Studies, vol.III, nr.4, July 1994) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Number of Szeklers[edit]

Archivum Ottomanicum, Volume 20, Mouton, 2002, p. 66 - this is not a proper citation (the author is necessary) and also the year of the estimation Tarabostes (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This [1] is an old estimation (at least 22 years old) Tarabostes (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to seek newer sources. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Endre Sik died in 1978, so I doubt that this is a recent estimation Tarabostes (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I realize now that there are more Endre Sik-s [2] Tarabostes (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Here is a book mentioning 665,000 Székelys just in Romania [3] (so it does not count the Székelys in Hungary and other countreis). This book was published in January 2013. I hope that it is recent enough for you. ;-) KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
That is a really dubious source. The book is written by Lucy Mallows, who is a "photojournalist, editor & translator" (it does not sound very reliable - it looks like WP:SPS). When referring to the total Hngarian population, she works with the 2011 Romanian Census#20 October 2011 census data. 665,000 people (obviously not the result of a estimation, the way of obtaining the figure is extremely questionable) are said to be Szekelys, even if conforming to the 2011 Romanian Census only 611,391 Hungarians live in the counties of Harghita, Covasna and Mureş. She could also have counted Aranyos Seat (it is just a supposition), but anyway it is not a source to be considered Tarabostes (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not self-published. It was published by the Bradt Travel Guides Ltd. I don't know where did she get the numbers from, but if you think that this book is not reliable, you can raise the issue on WP:RSN. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I found where the figure comes from. It represents the number of recorded Hungarians living in the counties of Harghita, Covasna and Mureş in 2002 [4] Tarabostes (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
As I wrote in the edit tags, date is never given for the "Total population" fields of ethnic groups and nations. For example, the total population data of Romanians is also based on 2002 data, still the infobox does not mention this. In order to remain consistent with other similar articles, we should not give date in that field of the infobox, either. On the other hand, the expanded information (population per country) should contain dates (if they are available). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

English name of Siculi[edit]

English scientific works used and still use SICULI as in this work: Eurocentral (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC) page 137)

That is fine they use the Latin version of their name. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think that the above self-published book cannot be used for WP purposes. Borsoka (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Works using SICULI name:

  • Tibor E. BARATH, THE EARLY HUNGARIANS, Montreal, 1973
A self-published book. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • A.F. Busching, (tr.P. Murdoch), A New System of Geography: Hungary, Transylvania, Sclavonia, Publisher: General Books LLC ISBN-13: 9781150536472, p. 75-78,
A reprint of a book published in 1762. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • A. Rees, The cyclopædia, vol.36, (Chapter Transylvania), Ulan Press, 2012
A book first published in the 1820s. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
  • W.H. Jones, L. Kropf, J.Kriza, The folk-tales of the Magyars, Publisher: Cornell University Library (January 6, 2010), ISBN-13: 978-1112602504
A book first published in 1889. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you should carefully read what reliable source means for WP purposes. You might have not realized that we are in the year 2013 AD. I would like to ask you to stop wasting your own and other editor's time by citing more than hundred-year-old books in order to prove anything. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If references exist nobody can hide them. Even Borsuqa ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right. If there is one modern reliable source written in English which proves that "Siculi" is used nobody can hide it. Please, do not refrain from searching modern reliable English sources. Borsoka (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Majority of editors?[edit]

I think the truth is not given by the number of editors? But by the facts. Am I right? Hortobagy (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right, provided that the facts are verifiable. I am afraid that your edits contradict to this requirement or at least none of them are based on reliable sources. Please read what WP:NOR means. Borsoka (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I may be bias but so as you. But when we're speaking about people then we should talk about their language too. Hortobagy (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Please read what WP:NOR means. Borsoka (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hortobagy: you should prove your "facts" by reliable sources. If you claim, for example, that there is (was?) such thing as the "Székely language", then there must be serious academic sources which talk about it. In this case, it shouldn't be hard to cite them. I am quite open to any theory, if it is the mainstream approach of the scholars working on that field. But, please, don't waste our time with original research or fringe theories. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Now seriously, can you even imagine that they didn't had any own language? The reply is that YES, they did had it, and guess what : it was called Székely language. Hortobagy (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Based on what reliable source do you suggest it? Borsoka (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Based on what reliable source do you suggest it they didn't? Hortobagy (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it is not me who have to prove anything, because the statement that there is a separate "Székely language" was not made by me. All the same, I can refer to a reliable source (Engel, Pál (2001). The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526. I.B. Tauris Publishers. ISBN 1-86064-061-3) which, on page 115, refers to the Székelys as "the largest Hungarian-speaking ethnic group in Romania". As you see, if a statement is based on reliable source there is no problem in substantiating it. Borsoka (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Magyar Autonomous Region[edit]

User Hortobagy has removed several sourced information from the article, mostly about the Magyar Autonomous Region. These includeded:
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
In 1952 the former province of Mureş (with the highest concentration of Székely population) was legally designated as the Magyar Autonomous Region. It was superseded in 1960 by the Mureş Magyar Autonomous Region, itself divided in 1968 into three nonautonomous districts, Harghita, Covasna and Mureş.[1]


Székely pottery (stove tile)

There were Székely autonomous regions from 1952-1968. First the Magyar Autonomous Region was created in 1952, later (1960) renamed Mureş-Magyar Autonomous Region. Ever since the abolition of the Mureş-Magyar Autonomous Region by the Ceauşescu regime in 1968, some of the Székely have pressed for their autonomy to be restored. Several proposals have been discussed within the Székely Hungarian community and by the Romanian majority. One of the Székely autonomy initiatives is based on the model of the Spanish autonomous community of Catalonia.[2]

A major peaceful demonstration was held in 2006 in favor of autonomy.[3]

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Please, explain us in detail why did you remove most sourced information about the Autonomous Region? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see he removed a lot of data, and most of it has references. Also I don`t understand why did he removed the images. In my opinion this should be reinserted. Adrian (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Adrian. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

I've full protected this article for a week. Any warring by anyone after that will result in an instant block, no waiting for violating 3RR. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 22:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I've reverted the article to the wrong version, the version of the last protection by an admin. Any admin is welcome to revert to a different wrong version without asking. Dennis Brown - - © - @ - Join WER 23:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources for the denomination "Szeklers" (lead section)[edit]

I added below 2 reliable sources,from the many available, to solve the citation needed tag added a few days ago. It is a totally uncontroversial edit. The main political structure of the Szeklers is called Szekler National Council (the name is used also on their official site and the redirect from Szeklers exists since 2003)

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raysdiet (talkcontribs) 07:03, 20 May 2013

Hi Raysdiet, you forgot to sign your comment. I agree with you that "Szekler National Council" is their offical name, since they even use this form on their website. The article can be updated with this name of their council after the protection is expired. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Given the history of conflict on this article, give it a few days and if no-one objects, notify me on my talk and I'll make the change. --RA (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I am talking about the sources needed in line 2, I don't want to add anything about the council, I was just pointing out that the organization uses the denomination "Szeklers" Raysdiet (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Raysdiet, if you are talking about this [5] edit of yours, then this is also fine with me. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I am talking about that edit, with the only mention that the source must be be formatted. Raysdiet (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Turkish origin of Siculi[edit]

From different sources appears that Siculi were speaking a Turkish language. Even Byzantine sources called Magyars and Siculi as Turks. Siculi are of Turkish-Avar origin. No connections with huns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Is is simple as that, if you have a reliable source we can discuss it how it can be introduced in the article. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


I don't see any relevance of mentioning Magyarization in the lead of *this* article, unless there are direct sources which connect the Székely people with Magyarization. Similarly, I do not see too much reference to Romanianization in the lead of the article about the Romanians... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above remark. There is no direct connection between the Székely people and Magyarization in the late 19th century. Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sherrill Stroschein's view[edit]

WP:NPOV: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic

Question for User:Fakirbakir and User:Koertefa: In Sherrill Stroschein's view, they Szeklers identify themselves as Hungarians for political purposes. Which are the other significant views that are ignored by using this phrasing? (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So, Szekelys have been identifying themselves as Hungarians for one thousand years because of "political purposes"? What a heck? Sorry, but it is simply rubbish. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry, but saying that "Szekelys have been identifying themselves as Hungarians for one thousand years" without providing any sources is original research.
I've found an article title that could be relevant: PCM and UDMR ask Szeklers and Csangos to declare themselves as Hungarians at the census ([6]) (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
  • "The Székely nobility has always been a group among the Hungarians who have a strong awareness of their Hungarian identity."[7] p. 29
  • "For this reason, Hungarians tend to idealise the Székely and consider them the 'real' Hungarians."[8] p. 168
  • "They are a sort of "proto-Hungarian" which is one of the reason why Hungarians consider Transylvania to be the cradle of their civilization"[9] p. 234

There is a huge difference between being a Hungarian sub-group with peculiar identity and being an entirely different non-Hungarian ethnic group. You misinterpret Szekler identity. Of course UDMR asked Szeklers to be Hungarian because there were two options in the census (Szekler and Hungarian). Romanian government maliciously wanted (wants) to divide Hungarian minority in Romania irrespective of the opinion of scholars. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Strange affirmation[edit]

I've removed the statement: "The Romanian government does not recognize the existence of a Székely Land." because I don't understand its meaning. How could Romania recognize a non-existing political entitiy? It is not like Kosovo or Transnistria, which are self-proclaimed entities (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Székelys of Bukovina[edit]

Merge Székelys of Bukovina into Székelys? As per scope and shortness of both articles. --Zoupan 15:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to preserve a separate article for the Székelys of Bukovina. Both articles could be expanded in the future. Should we merge the articles "Slovaks in Serbia" into "Slovaks" or "Serbs in Hungary" into "Serbs"? 16:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Borsoka (talk)
I fail to see how SzékelysSzékelys of Bukovina and SerbsSerbs in Hungary are relatable; the Székelys is a Hungarian ethnographic group of Hungary and Romania, while Serbs in Hungary is a community of Serbs (an ethnic-national minority). As per scope, Székelys of Bukovina would be a section at Székelys.--Zoupan 16:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The Székelys of Bukovina was a group of Székelys who settled in Bukovina and formed an ethnic-national minority there. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
As per WP:SCOPE, as there already are articles on Hungarians in Romania, Hungarians in Ukraine and Székelys, I suggested that instead of the further split of Székelys into "of Transylvania" and "of Bukovina" to have one Székelys article (reasons for splitting are size and content relevance).--Zoupan 04:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I still propose that the present article "Székelys of Bukovina" should be preserved. Ukraine and Romania did not exist when a Székely groups settled in Bukovina in the Habsburg Empire at the end of the 18th century. This group has a distinctive history: they were moved to Bukovina from the Székely Land, from Bukovina to Vajdaság (now in Serbia) and finally they moved to Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think a merge is a good idea in this case. Geographically speaking, Bukovinan Szekelys still live in Vojvodina and Tolna and Baranya counties. The history of Bukovinan Szeklers separated from Szeklers' history hundreds years ago. IMHO. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ethnically Avar[edit]

Quotation from article: "Székelys were part of the Avar confederation during the so-called Dark Ages, but this does not mean that they were ethnically Avar."

Avars were not a homogeneous people, just like any other steppe peoples. There was a leading tribe, after which all the others of their tribes got their names. Therefore it is obvious that there is no such thing like "ethnically Avar". Other tribes as well were not ethnically Avars within the Avar confederation. (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^ (Romanian) României îi este aplicabil modelul de autonomie al Cataloniei (The Catalan autonomy model is applicable in Romania), Gândul, 27 May 2006
  3. ^