Jump to content

Talk:Székelys/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Presenting hundreds of thousands of people as a few dozen

Even if the Romanian census data is correct, presenting hundreds of thousands of people as a few dozen is very misleading and unencyclopedic. We may have that data in the article in a short form, but not in the infobox, where data reflecting reality is needed not to confuse readers who are not familiar with the topic.
I don't think the "Székely dialect" differs so much from Hungarian that it's worth mentioning, but I'd appreciate experts' opinion on that. Squash Racket (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh you're wrong. BeenZaQ (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Székely dialect

Everybody knows Székely is a language.BeenZaQ (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I started to respond to this, but instead, let's avoid feeding the trolls; BeenZaQ is banned already. Hubacelgrand (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Szekely and their origins most likely arriving centuries before the Magyars (5th century or so), I thought of the Codex of Isfahan which contains Hunnic grammar and vocabulary. It is not identical to Hungarian, but very similar (20 or so of the nearly 600 words are different, and there are some grammatical endings or what not that don't exist in Magyarul). It is said that the Magyars encountered people who spoke a very similar language when they arrived there in the 9th century, I wonder if indeed the Szekely are the descendants of Attila's Huns, and Magyars are their relatives. Of course their numbers had diminished by the time of the Magyar conquest and Magyar language overtook their original Szekely language they were speaking previously. --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this different from universal Hungarian language?

Hát akkor maradjanak meg magik es magyarokul, mint ahogy mü se megmaradtunk. Transliterated in Finnish; Pysytelkää sitten tekin unkarilaisina, niinkun mekin olemme tehneet. Csángós did not speak Hungarian, they speak another Ugrian language near Hungarian, but not Hungarian or Székely dialect or language. This according the Helsinki University´s late Professor Yrjö Wichmann 1868 - 1935, who spoked Hungarian as native and was the only scholar who made intensive linguistical research work among Csángós after 1907. Now totally forgotten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.115.5 (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not different: it is a dialect of Hungarian. Can be understood by all Hungarians. It's not farther away from "standard" Hungarian than "Napuletan" from "standard" Italian. There are much bigger differences within other languages (take German for example). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.20.49 (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Sun and Moon symbols?

"The Sun and Moon symbols represented proto-Hungarian gods."

Any source on this? The Sun and Moon features in the heraldry of the other Romanian principalities (Wallachia, Moldavia), where there were little to no Szecklers, as well (I think) in other SE European nations, including Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.78.90 (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


Originally, the ancient Székelys lived in more parts of Hungarian Kingdom

Székelys lived in western southern and inner Hungary in medieval age. Transylvania wasn't their only ancient habitat in medieval age. But transylvania became the only place where they preserved the "Székely identity". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.75.53 (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Boloni

I see Laszlo Boloni in the list of famous seklers, but there is a small problem: he is not a sekler. his family came from hungary during the early 1940's. he said that himself. i will remove his name from the list but the picture needs to be modified as well 79.113.10.83 (talk) 11:39, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian people

  • The text from the previous source (Encyclopedia Britannica) is : Székely: member of a people inhabiting the upper valleys of the Mureş and Olt rivers in what was eastern Transylvania and is now Romania,
  • The current source tells Szekelys are known as a Hungarian people
  • In the book The realm of St. Stephen: a history of medieval Hungary, 895-1526 By Pál Engel, Andrew Ayton, Tamás Pálosfalvi the formulation is a Hungarian-speaking ethnic group

I don't understand very clear the concept "a Hungarian people". Do Szekely represent today a separate people, or just a subgrouop of the Hungarian people? Does the Szekely people exist? What is the difference between the Hungarian people and a Hungarian people?

I think the phrasing from the 3rd source is better, but it could be only my opinion(DerGelbeMann (talk) 15:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC))

I rephrased it to be more clear. Qorilla (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I rephrased to ethnic subgroup of the Hungarian nation (Ethnic groups and population changes in twentieth-century Central-Eastern ...By Piotr Eberhardt, Jan Owsinski) (DerGelbeMann (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
  • Other variant [1] subgroup of the Hungarian people (DerGelbeMann (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC))
  • I am personally not against of the formula "subgroup of the Hungarian people". My personal impression is that Székelys, although represent a strong Hungarian tradition (Hungarian-ness if we want to put it like this) this is not completely identical with the Hungarian-ness represented by other Hungarian communites, even in Transylvania. This is already reflected in the Hungarian Chronicles (Kézai, Chronicon Pictum etc.): Székelys appear as a group undoubtedly Hungarian, but not exactly the same way as those of Arpad. The separate character is the stronger as we go back in history and 1848-49 is the turning-point when Székelys became completely or almost completely unified with the rest of the Hungarian nation. I would mention one thing, with Székelys the knowledge of common descendance is stronger than among other Hungarian communities as the Székelys were more endogamous than other groups of Hungarians having strongly intermarried with Slavs and Germans. I think that Piotr Eberhard's remark received more emphasis here than necessary. No doubt, Székelys assimilated Slavs and Romanians and others as well, but this was not decisive in their ethnogenesis.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 22:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

order?

Why is "Aranyos seat exclave" section before Origins, History? man with one red shoe 22:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Aranyosszék (Aranyos Seat) renamed to Torda-Aranyos Megye (Turda-Arieş). The parts of it (presently in Romania) belong to Judeţul Cluj (Kolozs Megye) and Judeţul Alba (Alsó-Fehér Megye). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.87.249 (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


Árpád and his fighters were turkic rather than ancestor of Hungarians

Árpád spoke Turkic mothertongue rather than the ancestor of present-day Hungarian language. There are many ancient treasure bith bilingual sentences. 1 sentence in turkic and the other is old Hungarian. The turkic fighters of Arpad and leaders genetically very different than the common Hungarian people who are the originator of Hungarian language —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.221 (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

We do not know his vernacular and we are absolutely unsure in connection with Hungarian society on the eve of the Hungarian conquest, however theories are exising about that. For instance, Smaller Turkic leader class, and Hungarian common people, but it needs more researches. One thing is sure, Hungarian mother tongue had to be in majority.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
We know that when Bulcsú and Lél around 950 visited Constatinople, Constantine VIII noted in section 39 of the Administrando Imperio that the Kabars taught these Turks (Hungarians) the language of the Khazars, and they have been using this language ever since, but know the other langauge of the Turks as well. This suggest that the original language spoken by the community was the other language while the language known to the Byzantine as the language of the Khazars was a second language. It also suggests that the military elite was bilingual. Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I almost forgot to mention that theory of the double Hungarian conquest could also explain this 'mother tongue' problem. According to this the first wave was mosty Hungarian population (of course mixed races) with mostly Hungarian vernacular and the second wave had to be Turkic or mostly Turkic (or mixed Hungarian and Turkic) population with Turkic vernacular. If it was true we could assume a sort of connection (relationship) between the first and second waves (regardless of the mother tongues).Fakirbakir (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A MISTAKE IN THE PICTURE

THE SECOND MAN ON THE RIGHT OF THE FIRST ROW IS ASPARUH!!!!!!!!THE FIRST BULGARIAN KING OF MODERN BULGARIA. I HAVE SEEN THAT PICTURE A LOT ON THE INTERNET, I THINK EVEN IN A BULGARIAN WEBSITE AND THEY ALL SAY THAT HE IS ASPARUH, THE BULGARIAN KING, NOT A MAGYAR. THE PICTURE OF HIM DOES NOT BELONG HERE AT ALL!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 08:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Ernakh is a Hun (if I'm not mistaken), so what is he doing in the picture - Hungarians were not Huns! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 07:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture that needs corrections

This image is inaccurate because:

Requested move 0

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Nomination withdrawn [2] —GFOLEY FOUR— 17:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Székely → Szekelys — Relisted. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC) székely (plural: székelyek) is the denomination of the ethnic group in Hungarian. The corresponding English word, that uses English ortography, is Szekely (plural: Szekelys): [3]. I'd like to ask the judging admins to consider the arguments themselves, not the numbers of voters from each side. Later edit: I'd like to withdraw the RFM and to make a new proposal (Iaaasi (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Oppose per WP:TITLE (titles should be in the singular) and I see no evidence that the accent is ever intentionally left out. 86.6.193.43 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a false argument: all the pages that treat ethnic groups are at the plural form: Huns, Khazars, Alans, Slovaks etc. É is a letter of the Hungarian alphabet that does not exist in English(Iaaasi (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
Support, I can support this idea, however I am unsure about this form 'Szekelys'. It is a naturalized English word? If It is not, we should use this form 'Székelys'. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Support all pages about nations are either plural or use the format "[...] people" as in French people (but that's used mostly for disambiguation purposes). "Székely people" is a valid alternative, but there's no need for disambiguation so Szekelys or Székelys should be the preferred form. man with one red shoe 23:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I'd support "Székely people". I'm unsure about the plural, as there is no such thing as Frenches or Englishes. Why is there then Székelys? Qorilla (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. They are normally referred to in English as "the Székely". I have never heard them referred to by any knowledgable person as "the Székelys". Székelyek would be technically correct but too obscure. No particular objection to "Székely people". There is no particular consistency about naming of articles about ethnic groups: consider Jews/Finns, Comanche/Iyer, French people/Tuareg people. - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment (reply for the above against voters) I've also provided a link above: [4], so the usual plural form is Szekelys. The plural form without the desinence -s, is also used, but more rarely:
-"the szekelys were" has 189 results on google books
-"the szekely were" has only 26 results on google books
-"the szekelys have" has 26 results on google books
-"the szekely have" has only 2 results on google books
Comment I think we can keep the Hungarian spelling (because It is not naturalized English word-in my opinion), but Székely people or Székelys would be really better form to the article.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
On Google Books the spelling Szekelys is preferred to Székelys (Iaaasi (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC))
Comment form of Székelys has 14, 600 results.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment form of Szekelys has 27, 100 results. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting numbers, but I am not convinced. It is not English word.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The figures tell everything, maybe you are subjective because you are a Hungarian. An alternative would be to use the form Szeklers, that is preferred on Britannica (Iaaasi (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC))
If the English or non-Hungarian editors do not use diacritic It will not mean that it is unnecessary. Google can not check nationality of writers/editors. It is name of an ethnic group. The diacritic absolutely no harm. Szeklers is the German name of the Székelys. Székelys call themselves Székelys. It is not an English word, the question is whether it is naturalized word or not.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems that even the English spelling does not appear on the search window: [5], when clicking a particular result the form Székelys can be found, like here: [6], so probably the version with é is better (Iaaasi (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC))
Frankly, It would not matter if it was 'Szekelys'. English keyboards can not use charachter 'é'. English editors are always confused because of this. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Can't they? Look: ééééé. One just has to know which keys to press. On a Mac with US-keyboard, it is "alt-E E". You can also switch keyboard layouts to one with a dedicated é-key. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Support per nominator. --Olahus (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose We should really keep it at "Székely" rather than moving to "Szekely" or "Szekler." I also propose (rather less urgently, given that so many authors have invented or adopted the strange form "Székelys") standardizing the plural form, in the article title and throughout the articles on Wikipedia, as "Székely." The word simply hasn't been adopted fully enough into English to use fully English orthographic conventions like the replacement of "e" with "é" (a totally different letter in this case) or the tacking-on of a final "s"; however, "Székelyek" is definitely too "Hungarian" and foreign a form to ever catch on, and I've never seen it in the writings of any native English speaker. In my experience "Szekler," the German form, is a vestige of 19th-century scholarship and is on its way out. If the Székely become a major point of discussion in the English-speaking world, and the Englished form "Szekely" (or "Szekelys") starts to become accepted - that is to say, if English speakers stop seeing it as an adopted foreign word and start seeing it as a native English word - then, of course, I would support a move to "Szekely" or "Szekelys." As it stands, moving this article would be like moving the respective articles to "Veszprem," "Pecs," "Bacau" or "Targu Mures" - or even the hideous "Motes" for the people around Câmpeni (Campeni?) - which we can all agree would be replacing a precise, uncontroversial form with a bizarre and imprecise multilingual hybrid. To recap: when "Szekely" becomes a fully naturalized English word (like "Bucharest" has, for instance, and like "Timisoara" hasn't), we should move the article. That day has not come, and is not likely to in the near future. Keep the article where it is. Hubacelgrand (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment The plural form Székelys is already widely used, even by Hungarian authors (you can check Google Books) (Iaaasi (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC))
Iaaasi, I believe you (I have noticed this myself, as I said above), which is why my major argument isn't with the "s" at the end of the word (which I still think is ugly and incorrect, and which the most careful authors tend to avoid, but which is a battle that's already lost) but with the replacement of "é" for "e." "Székelys" would probably be fine - "Szekelys" or "Szeklers" would not. Hubacelgrand (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've already said above that I support the same version: "so probably the version with é is better", I don't understand why you voted against in these conditions (Iaaasi (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC))
I voted against the original proposal (Székely to Szekelys) and still would. I will not argue against the move if you keep the é. Sorry for the confusion. Hubacelgrand (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's start over, I think we can pretty much agree that the current version is not compliant with Wikipedia practices, we have three variants: "Székelys", "Szekelys", or "Székely people", any of this variant is better than the current one. I think there are valid arguments for each of the variant, I don't think the policy points clearly to one of these three (prove me wrong). Let's have a straw poll on these versions and pick the one that's accepted by the most editors. man with one red shoe 20:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • What Wikipedia practice is this not compliant with? Speaking as the person who started Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, I can definitely say there is no particular consistency about naming of articles about ethnic groups. Again, consider the examples I gave above Jews, Finns (both plural); Comanche. Iyer (both singular); French people, Tuareg people. Or is there some other practice you have in mind? That said, I'd have no problem with "Székely people", I just don't see that a move is necessary. In any case, wherever we put the article, everything that's gone by should be available as a redirect. - Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected, there's no clear practice, but it does look to me like the majority, Comanche notwithstanding, plural or [...] people is the most used format, since most of the people are fine with "Székely people", I think that has become my favorite form, it also parallels nicely Székely land. man with one red shoe 23:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
man with one red shoe, I think a poll would be unnecessary. The things are clear:
- I've proved above that the most utilised plural form is "Székelys" ("Székely" is also used, but more rarely)
- "Szekelys" - this form is incorrect, I had the sensation that this is the Englished form, but I was misleaded
- "Székelys" and "Székely people" are perfectly equivalent, so any of them can be used with the same right (Iaaasi (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC))

Oppose As per Hubacelgrand. I note that purely linguistic issues should be bravely left for native speakers instead of being decided by Romanians and Hungarians.Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The most adequate denomination would be Szeklers since it is used by Enciclopaedia Britannica. Furthermore, this is the eldest denomination used in English for this population. The designation "Székely" isn't English, but Hungarian and it is not on the Hungarian Wikipedia here, but the English one. Please keep this difference in mind. I think a new request should be made and the users should chooose between the 3 terms: Székely (Hungarian denomination with Hungarian orthography), Szekelys (Hungarian denomination adapted to the English orthography) and Szeklers (English denomination) --Olahus (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Britannica alone is not sufficient grounds. The argument "this is the eldest denomination" holds no water, as we are supposed to present the most modern consensus view, not the old one. Our article on India is not entitled "Hindoostan", and our article on Sami people is not entitled "Lapp people". Also, since when is there a rule against using diacritics? Székelys would be perfectly acceptable in English as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
"Szekler" is not an English denomination. "Szekler" is a German denomination that happened to gain some currency in English because the first time most scholars (in any language) treated the issue seriously, the Székely were under the administration of Austria or Austria-Hungary. Sadly, Britannica is behind the times on this one. Szekler is not an acceptable compromise in my view; the "Hindoostan" comparison made me laugh, but it's very apt. (If you are really looking for ways to make article titles more accessible to English speakers, perhaps you'd have better luck changing Ojibwe back to Chippewa - to take just one of many examples). Furthermore, it has been fairly well-established before now that the problem with the article's title, if there is one (which is itself debatable), is with the plural/non-plural form, not with the é or the word. As for adaptation to English orthography, I for one would argue very strenuously against moving articles to "Timisoara" or "Bacau" or "Targu Mures," which would be the proper locations for those articles under that precedent. Hubacelgrand (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the "Székelys" is not Hungarian, I am all for diacritics and special characters (and I think that's Wikipedia policy too) when we use a term from another language, but since the plural form Székelys is not Hungarian is almost like asking to have an article named "Buchareșt". I came to the conclusion that the most elegant solution is "Székely people" (especially that we need to differentiate from "Székely land". man with one red shoe 05:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the options, "Székely people" is probably the best solution if we really need to move the article. Personally I still think it is fine exactly where it is, at Székely (as Jmabel helpfully points out, there is no real standard for ethnic group titles being plural, singular, or singular + "people") - "Székely people" might suggest to some that the Székely are a totally separate ethnic group rather than a subgroup of Hungarians - but as long as we keep things clear in the intro, it would be an elegant solution around which we might be able to build a consensus. Hubacelgrand (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, you are right, "Székely people" might suggest that they are a totally separate ethnic group. man with one red shoe 14:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both forms seems to have some currency, and it's hard to decide which is the more prevalent, and we seem to have rough consensus on that. So, as a tie-breaker I'd go with the established policy of a general preference for singular nouns. I admit there's also a distinct preference on my part, as a native English speaker, for the singular in this case, unlike in the case of huns. but this is a peculiarity of English and may be just my own dialect. Andrewa (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose (sort of!) as Google seems to give:
  • "the Székely" = 38,000 "the Székely " = 1,570,000
  • "the Szekely" = 11,000 "the Szekely " same
  • "the Szekelys" = 9,940 "the Szekelys" same
  • "the Székelys" = 9,940 "the Székelys " = 2,070,000
In this case I suspect that "Székelys" is more correct here. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the same; I've moved the article to Székelys (the initial proposal, Szekelys was not very appropriate). If anyone contests the move he is free to ask for a RFM discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

Oppose per above. Székely people would be OK with me, but per above it'd probably suggest Székelys are a separate ethnic group. Squash Racket (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Székelys/Archive_2&oldid=1251446123"