Talk:Hungarians/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Part of this talk page has been archived.       Click here for discussions before 2005-09-10.

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

Not quite.

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

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

(2005.09.11)

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

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

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

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

(2005.09.14)

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

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

(1) And what about the remaining numbers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The number of Hungarians in Israel has been changed to 10,000. This is because there are only 10,000 ethnic hungarians in Israel. However there are around 250,000 jews of hungarian origin, but they are ethnically jewish, not hungarian. This article is trying to find out how many "ethnic hungarians" live world wide. Also in Australia, 62,000 people identified themselves as hungarian in the 2001 census.

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

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

KissL 09:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

KissL 09:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

-and partly it is still saying

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

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

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

I reverted the sentence because of two reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear KissL

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

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

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

Dear Zello,

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

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

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

The two theories are somewhat "wild". But the funny thing is in the article some "wild" theories are mentioned, without citation and discredited without citation. Balazs 21:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is about the Magyars and not about the origin of the Magyars. I don't think we should discuss alternative theories in this article. But for me it is OK to mention Etruscans and Stone Age-inhabitants together with the others in the list. Zello 21:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the version of Codex Sinaiticus is reflecting the old thesis of public law about the Kingdom of Hungary. According to that the KoH was an independent state even under the Habsburg rule wich was only a personal but not a real union. Of course the sphere of authority of the King was very large so de facto it was a real union but not de jure. This thesis was a bit corrupted by the Pragmatica Sanctio, strengthened in 1792, and even more corrupted by the Ausgleich but was never gave up by the prominent statesmen of Hungary (including Deák) and the Hungarian Parliament. So after 1920 nothing happened but the King has lost his rights, the country became totally independent again, and - of course - two-thirds of its territory was lost. Zello 03:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I know, this is an interesting topic. The main point here is that this is an article about Magyars (not about the Kingdom of Hungary), where such things are out of place, and Codex S.' version was simply misleading in that it seemed to imply that the Kingdom of Hungary somehow completely ceased to exist in 1526/1700/1867 (?), which is not the case. It is quite normal to speak of a Kingdom of Hungary up to 1918 both at that time and in present history texts and it is completely common in the history of other countries to keep the designation XY kingdom even when there are personal and other unions. And what happened after 1920 was not part of the edit, as I have understood it.Juro 04:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely right, I think all three of us speaks about the same :) As I understood, the expression of "came back into being" applies to the INDEPENDENT KoH, not the KoH in all. But you are right it is really misleading a bit Zello 13:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I found this image in the Varangians article. Maybe somebody could help the writers of that article and tell them exactly where Magyars should be in the map. It would be interesting to clarify the connections between Magyars and Varangians (Vikings) anyway, because they were neighbours for a certain period of time. --KIDB 14:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

the mazar languane were used: avaria, khazaria, sarmatia.

I'd indicate Magyars between the Dnieper and Donets rivers, adjacent to the Slavs, excluding, however, the Crimea; as well as between the Bulgars and the Ural River, in what is now Bashkortostan, since the article states that the Bashkirs were Hungarian-speaking prior to the Mongol invasion. Florian Blaschke 13:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that "Magyar" is the native form, while "Hungarian" is an exonym, but in English "Hungarian" is much more used:

Google search: (excluding wikipedia hits)

• 2,000,000 hits on Hungarians
• 183,000 hits on Magyars

Google books:

• 39,200 pages on Hungarians
• 13,700 pages on Magyars

Our Wikipedia policy is to put the page in the most commonly used English name, which would be in this case "Hungarians". Any thoughts about this? bogdan 14:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my..., first, you should NEVER use google tests, secondly , Hungarian means "referring to Hungary" or to "Magyars", while Magyars only means referring to "Magyars". And this is a text about Magyars. Juro 17:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Juro, in the Slovakian language there is a distinction between "Uhorsko" and "Madarsko" the first meaning the Kingdom of Hungary and the second referring to present-day Hungary, am I right? The reason behind this sophisticated approach is that Slovaks have a lot to do with both the historical and present-day Hungary, so they developed this terminology.

In the Hungarian language, there is no such distinction, neither in English, and I am sure there are many native English speakers who have no clue who these "Magyars" are at all. The expression is, however, convinient if you would like to talk about the Hungarian speaking ethnic group within the Kingdom of Hungary. The expression "ethnic Hungarian" can also be used for the same reason. I think the suggestion of Bogdan is worth to consider, and to talk about. --KIDB 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In romanian there is "ungur" and "maghiar". The "huns" and the "magyars" were different migratory tribes-- Bonaparte talk 21:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte, we're talking about English usage not Romanian or Slovakian. Alexander 007 21:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And Bonaparte, "ungur" is derived from "Onogur", not from "Hun". bogdan 21:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Juro: in the English-speaking world, Magyars are more often known as Hungarians. To say "sometimes known as Hungarians" is misleading. You do not live in an English-speaking country, unless I'm mistaken. I do. Many English-speakers will stare blankly when you say Magyar. When you say Hungarian, they know what you're talking about. We have Hungarian restaurants here, not Magyar restaurants. Alexander 007 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with Slovak. The ethnic group is called Magyars in English (or German) expert texts (see e.g. [2]). Actually, you should know that. "Hungarian" is a popular "mistake". And an encyclopedia should inform people and not take over their errors. I know that people use "Hungarian", I know that they do not know what "Magyars" are (I myself also use "Hungarian" in normal communication), but that is not a reason. It would be a reason, if Hungarian had no other meaning, but it has. That's the same "mistake" like using Slovakian instead of Slovak - English people do not know Europe enough and just take the name of the country and add -ian. And my point above was that if you take google or actually any usual discussion, you cannot distinguish whether Hungarian refers to the country or to the ethnicity. And of course, it mostly refers to the country. Juro 18:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Juro, if I change "Magyars" to "Hungarians" in the search that you just linked and it gave almost 3 times as many hits: 38600 vs. 13500.

I'm a Hungarian living in an English speaking country BTW. :)

I strongly support Bogdan's suggestion. -- nyenyec ☎ 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You have not read what I have written above. Once again: Point ione: EXPERT texts use Magyar, Point two: How do you know that Hungarians always refers to ethnicity?...But do what you want, I see any expertise is useless here. Juro 19:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW this has nothing to do with whether you are Hungarian or not, but with whether you have ever read an expert text on this topic. No true expert would ever use Hungarian, because it is ambiguous. Juro 19:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I recently purchased a book called "The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat". Would this qualify as an "expert text"? I support Bogdan's suggestion too. If an American were to go to a library and want information about Magyars they would look under "H" for Hungarians. No non-expert would ever think to look up "Magyar". An encyclopedia is supposed to serve non-experts, no? But at the same time, it seems silly to be arguing semantics. Wouldn't it be good enough to simply have a redirect? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 21:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In our context, expert text means a text dealing with ethnic groups (just like this one). The title you are citing clearly has other objectives (as its wording shows). Actually, I should find some quotes now, but since I see it is useless in the long run, I won't. I have described the reasons. Google wins :) Let's hope, nuclear power plants do not start to explode one day, because the operators start to behave according to what google says :)). Juro 00:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess this is where I'm at a loss. I'm unclear on why you apply such a context to this article and why you seem to be missing the point that it is common usage in English for "Hungarian" meaning the ethnic group. Have you considered why Magyars introduce themselves as "Hungarian" and not "Magyar" to English speakers? In some ways this reminds me a bit like using the word "salt". In common usage we refer to NaCl as salt even though the word "salt" can refer to multiple substances. English speakers don't go around asking "pass the sodium chloride". If a school child was assigned to do a report on salt, the first thing they would do is go look up the word "salt" in an encyclopedia, not "sodium chloride". As with "salt", a school child would go look up "Hungarian" in an online encyclopedia, not "Magyar". This is why I fail to see why you would apply this expert text context here. Wikipedia doesn't strike me as an ethnographic journal read by grad students. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 17:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear on this issue, the term "Hungarian" means "anybody living in Hungary." Especially before 1918, there were many, many, many Hungarians who were not Magyars - more than half the population of Hungary, in fact. These included Germans, Jews (although some Jews and Germans had, during the 19th century, begun identifying themselves as Magyars), Slovaks, Croats, Ruthenes, Romanians, and Serbs. The issue has been somewhat obscured by the fact that present-day Hungary is fairly uniformly Magyar in ethnicity (although, should we describe Magyars in Romania as Hungarian?). But it is still a significant enough reason to keep this article at Magyars. john k 01:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid we can't be totally sophisticated in this field. If you continue this way, you should establish a way to define eg. ethnic Romanians not living in Romania. Most of them would not be happy if we started to call them Vlachs. --KIDB 10:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we should describe Hungarians in Romania as Hungarias. At least that's what they do: http://www.rmdsz.ro/script/mainframe.php?lang=eng. Vay 14:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not really how to decribe Magyars living outside of Hungary, I just threw that in as a passing thought. The problem is how to describe non-Magyars living in Hungary. Historically, they were considered "Hungarians," but not Magyars, and this is a fairly consistent usage. john k

Re: non-Magyars in Hungary: You can use the expression Ethnic Serbian living in Hungary, or Swabians living in Hungary / ethnic Germans in Hungary (they use the term "UngarnDeutsche" as far as I know). We should not invent new expressions in Wikipedia, should we?

Hungarian Croatians, or Hungarian Serbs? Not really. I don't think all members of these minority groups would like these expressions. Altough "Hungarian" in English literally means citizen of the Republic of Hungary, in reality Hungarian very often means ethnic Hungarian, similarly to "English" which both refers to people living in England and people with English ethnicity. --KIDB 08:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

John, Just to elaborate a bit more on the issue - I see you are American - being politically correct in the US is a bit different from being politically correct in Central Europe.

When the Kingdom of Hungary still existed, all minorities had their own name in the Hungarian (Magyar) language, eg. "Rác" meant Serbian, Slovaks were "Tót", Romanians "Oláh" (=Vlach), etc. In modern Hungary, these traditional expressions are already not in use. Today, they are called Serb, Slovak, etc.

If you are looking for similar old English expressions describing these minorities within the Kingdom of Hungary, you will not find any, because Britons were not too much interested in etchnic issues of Central Europe, so these words simply did not develop in the English language.

Regarding "Magyars", as I wrote earlier, the expression may be useful if you are discussing the history of the ethnic group with experts. If you are talking about the etchnic group of present days, "Hungarian" or "ethnic Hungarian" seems more appropriate for me. --KIDB 13:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I know that Hungarian is used, and I can appreciate that in Hungary, ethnic minorities were never called Hungarian. But we do use the word Magyar in English, and we do use it to refer specifically to the Magyar ethnicity. The word "Hungarian" can also be used in this sense, but is more ambiguous. I don't see why we shouldn't use the clear, unambiguous term, which is most certainly used very frequently in English, when it is available. john k 17:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

EB and Encarta on Magyar vs. Hungarian

It seems that...

Britannica uses both:

• Magyar: Any member of the dominant ethnic group in Hungary...
• Hungarian: also called Magyar, member of a people speaking the Hungarian language of the Finno-Ugric family and living primarily in Hungary, but represented also by large minority populations in Romania, Croatia, Vojvodina (Yugoslavia), Slovakia, and Ukraine...

Encarta uses Magyars:

• Magyars: Magyars, people who founded and continue to inhabit the state of Hungary...
• Hungarian -> Hungarian Language

-- nyenyec ☎ 17:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• I just came onto this page and was SHOCKED that it's called "Hungarians" and not Magyars, since all textbooks I've ever seen on the subject always explicitly make clear that the ethnonym is Magyar in English, while Hungarians would be an umbrella term for all from the land/ speaking the language. General use isn't really a fair assessment here, since Hungarian will naturally turn up more since it covers more.--Львівське (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there really 10,000 Magyars in Israel? If Magyar is to be read as an ethnic group, shouldn't it exclude Hungarian Jews, who were ethnically distinct? I know that many Hungarian Jews in the late 19th century assimilated and came to identify themselves as Magyars, but it's hard to see as those that subsequently left Hungary and settled in Israel would still so consider themselves. Or is there a large community of non-Jewish Magyars in Israel? john k 02:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As you wrote in the previous article ("although some Jews and Germans had, during the 19th century, begun identifying themselves as Magyars") there were a lot of jews in Hungary in the 20th century who considered themselves to be Magyars, with Israeli religion. Ask Tony Curtis, why he comes back to Hungary sometimes. --KIDB 07:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably the 10,000 "Magyars" in Israel are simply relatives of Jewish Hungarians from mixed mariages. bogdan 10:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at www.ethnologue.com[[3]]. According to this source, there are some 70.000 people in Israel speaking Hungarian. This may be an exaggerated number, but I can imagine there are 10.000 people in Israel considering themselves Hungarian (Magyar). --KIDB 13:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly. There are many long-time Israelis who speak Romanian also, though I don't know how they identify themselves. Alexander 007 13:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

In Hungary, there's a tradition among Jews that they consider themselves Hungarians with a particular religion ("mózeshitű magyarság"). Even today this is the official policy of major Jewish organizations (like Mazsihisz) - that's why they opposed accepting the Jewish minority as a national minority during the early 90s. However, there's a new wave of Jewish organizations with the goal of amending the relevant Act so that it qualify Jewish as a national minority (www.zsidokisebbseg.com). Those Jews, however, who emigrated to Israel, IMO cannot be counted as Hungarians without further consideration (the decisive factor is whether they consider themselves Hungarians or not). (Similarly, Hungarians like to boast about Hungarian-born Nobel prize winners (many of them with Jewish ancestry) - although not all of them actually considered themselves Hungarians). Vay 14:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Vay, I know that in Hungary, Jews generally consider themselves Hungarian. I was just wondering whether Jews who emigrated to Israel consider themselves Hungarian. john k 18:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of them consider, some of them not; obviously. Gubbubu 17:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

What is this nonesense, I am an Israeli of half "hungarian" jewish origin, I don't think "hungarian" jews here consider themselves or really are genetically Hungarians/Magyars.. they/we are just Jewish of that region just like other Jewish people of other regions. User:Yaron Livne 03:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but people in the past had no clue about "genetics" however they could have considered culturally Hungarians, if you or your family don't that's another issue (and WP:OR) and doesn't invalidate what other people felt. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, I expected this, but what are you saying? That all those thousends of "hungarian jews" here in Israel think of themselves as part of the Hungarian ethnic group? I don't think so.. I think they are all like my grandparents, Jewish people that came from the hungarian speaking area.. Just like other Jewish groups from other parts of the world.. Maybe I really don't know.. or maybe there is a big problem of definition here, but it's just wierd to see the Israeli flag on that table, with a big number. User:Yaron Livne 05:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I created an independent article for Hungarian animals and gave only a link here. The topic is interesting of course but it is really weird to read about animals here where we speak generally about Hungarian people. And not only weird, indeed it is insulting (even I know this wasn't your intention!). Simply: I'm not an animal :) Zello 15:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I accept your point ... The location was unhappy ... --fz22 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

...and it was added after the section "Later genetic influences". :-) bogdan 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The Finno-Ugric languages are a very well-attested group of languages, as is the classification of Hungarian as of the Ugric subgroup of that family. Why does the article address this so tentavely as if it were controversial? Among linguists it is not controversial at all; no more contraversial than the fact that French is descended from Latin.--Rob117 04:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think theory is a neutral word - there were a lot of linguistic debates in the 19-20th centuries about the origin of the Magyars and the Finno-Ugric theory was the most convincing among then. Even though the topic remained very controversial not like the origin of French, and the article shows this. Zello 07:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think (too) that the classification of hungarian language would be well-attested. the word "Theory" is applicable and neutral. Among linguists the origin of hungarians and related theories (e.g. the Theory of Finno-Ugric Ancient Home) is more than disputed (this theory, for example, disputed even among finno-ugrist linguists). Gubbubu

One must also consider that just because a people speak a language, it doesn;t mean that they are that ethnicity. Ie the majority of today;s Hungarian's are probably descendents from slavs , dacians and , less so, Bulgars that lived in Pannonia. The Magyar language was imposed by the Magyars who were probably a numerically inferior ruling core. Hxseek123.243.240.160 12:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, what you written, Anonymous, is irrelevant for the topic. Second, your claim is unattested and highly unprobable, as I can demonstrate by historical parallels. If the Hungarians were a ruling core, inferior in number, the language would have been lost. Consider all the other examples in that time (give or take 200 years): Bulgars: ruling Turkish core took on Slavic language; Kiev Rus: ruling Normannic core took on Slavic language; Normandy: ruling Normannic core took on Old French language; England (after 1066) ruling (French speaking) Normannic (Normandy-French) core took on Germanic (Old English) language (of course the ruling class left its trace in form of loaned words in the language) -- All the examples within the geographical and time frame indicate, that the scenario you painted is highly improbable. Szabi 13:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless DNA analysis places Hungarian people closer to (you won't like it) Romanians and even other population from Balkans: Bulgarians and Greeks than other groups. If you want I'll provide supporting data, but I actually mentioned this only as "by the way" since I don't think this is a relevant or important issue. -- AdrianTM 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW also, it is known that western eurasian nomads were all rather mixed DNA-wise before they even migrated into the region and the Magyars were no exception. See for example http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2006/04/mtdna-of-ancient-cumanians.html Hxseek, nomadic societies didn't hold the same definition of ethnicity that we settled and "civilized" peoples do so to make statements that assume Magyars were some sort of genetically homogenous core group that imposed their language upon an ethnically different majority is rather baseless. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If Adrian's post was meant for me, I don't understand it. If not, please ignore. I was not referring to DNA whatsoever. I think, you have a wrong definition of ethnicity in mind. Ethnicity does pretty little to do with appearance or genetics, it's a cultural concept.

My post merely refered to the fact that the user identified with 123.243.240.160 did several mistakes on the one hand, and on the other hand he was off-topic additionally: (a) the finno-ugric theory has nothing to do with either ethnicity or genetics. It's a linguistic theory (one that stands on very stable fundaments). (b) He assumes that ethnicity is defined by genetics. It's not (see also Wikipedia article on ethnicity). (c) It's true, that the genetic pool of todays Hungarians shares a lot with the neighbouring people (it would be sad, if not), but again, that does not have to do anything with the Finno-Ugric theory. But also, how does that disprove the existence of the Hungarian ethicity? (Which he tries to suggest by linking his first and second sentence), and finally (d) his third sentence was (as I already put it) not true by very high probability, to a degree, that one would in casual conversation say it to be bluntly false.

I wanted to clarify that, if the posts were not meant for me, ignore it, and I also believe, that I have elaborated on the topic enough, and will contribute to this thread only concerning its title (Finno-Ugric "theory?"). Szabi 11:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I responded to both of you, I thought that the DNA issue might be relevant to the "Hungarians were a ruling core, inferior in number" issue discussed by both of you, user 123.243.240.160 doesn't seem to discuss the linguistic issues per se, he/she talks about the fact that the language was imposed, or transferred if you want to a larger population, you contradicted him providing some examples that show that this didn't happen in other cases, I just provided a supporting element for his claim (assuming that of course somebody would find improbably that the Hungarians speaking population coming from Asia had similar DNA with people from Balkans). If you want to contradict user 123.243.240.160 you can do it by claiming that ethnicity is not what he think he is, not by saying that "If the Hungarians were a ruling core, inferior in number, the language would have been lost" which seems to be false in the light of the DNA evidence -- that there are also examples of small ruling core imposing/transferring the language to a larger population -- see National Geographic's Genographic project, there is an interesting article about this issue regarding the population in Great Britain. -- AdrianTM 12:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn`t imply anything, I gaved sources... what else do you want? Greier 14:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Daco-Romanian theory is very much a question of controversy not only between Romanian and Hungarian historians but among the international scientific community. There are wikipedia articles where you can follow the arguments and counterarguments of both side. The reader should look up the Origin of Romanians article which quite a good one and even contains your sources! The version I proposed doesn't claim that Daco-Romanian theory is false. If something is controversial than wikipedia mentions controversiality as a rule of NPOV. Zello 15:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But what has the so-called "daco-theory" have to do with my adds to the article??? Not only that it`s not a controversy, but it`s validity has nothing to do with the article. Let`s assume that there is no connection between romanians and a local romanised population, and that romanians did migrate from somewhere, but when the magyars arrived, they were already there. The mentions of the other populations (avars, slavs, bulgars, etc) are based on sources and intrepretation of other, more vague, sources (in other words, common sense). Well, I repeat myself: I GAVED SOURCES!!! What else do you want? It doesn`t matter that they are already mentioned in Origin of Romanians, since that`s a completely different article, wich (another repetition) HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. One last thing, you mentioned Transilvania. Well, actually, my comments refer to Pannonia, not to Transylvania. Greier 16:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your sources are controversial. See wikipedia about Gesta Hungarorum. As you certainly know opponents of Daco-Romanian continuity deny the existence of Romanized people in the Carpathian Basin after the 6. century until the arrival of Romanians in the 12. century. Any claim that Romanized people lived there between this dates is the Daco-Romanian theory itself. It's a basic rule of NPOV that you can't present controversial things as generally accepted facts. Zello 01:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, than we can be somewhere in the middle. I think this is the best way to put it: and Romanians in the east and southeast. As I sayd: the sources and the common sense (it would be pathetic, even for the most nationalistic hungarian, not to recognise that there is something wrong in saying that in the 10th century romanians were not there, but 100 years later the suddendly appeared, BUUMMM!!!! just like that, from nowhere) show the presence of romanians in Transylvania and Pannonia, but this is questioned by some historians (and for that I added: although this is matter of controversy (see Daco-Romanian continuity.)

Something I don`t agree with: and especially the various nations (Germans, Slovaks, Romanians, Serbs, Croats and others), invited to resettle the depopulated territories after the departure of the Turks in the 18th century. First of all, there wasn`t ever such a "invitation", and secondly, the romanian element in the creation on modern hungarian nation spead for centuries, from the 11th century, well into the 21th (I say 21th because in Trasylvania there are still hungarian speaking people, with hungarian names, but with orthodox confesion, and calling themselves romanians. Most probably, decades from now they will be "hungarians". In the article I put 18th century, to prevent any controversies). It is a way too complex event (e.g.: the self-magyarisation of romanians to beneficiate (enjoy) better privileges, forced magyarisation, etc) to be mentioned in the article (plus that there already a link tomagyarisation, where such things could be better expressed).

Only a personal comment: don't panic - with current and historical demographic trends in a hundred year time there won't be any Hungarian people in Romania. There is strong hope. Zello 19:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I see no reason for you to keep editing the article, except to present vague and/or subjective info. For that, I ask that maybe there`s someone in charge here to settle this thig out, and explain what`s wrong with my edits (if there is something wrong with them...) Greier 18:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

1, About Daco-Romanian controversy: if you are able to stick to this version I think it OK and NPOV. But not necessary to mention one-by-one the sources. If the reader is interested in the topic there is the link to the article.

2, You are right that Romanians and Hungarians lived together since the Middle Ages so they mixed up with each other not only in the 18th century but all the time. The same is true for Slovaks so the sentence certainly needs rephrasing. Your present version is unacceptable because it implies that Hungarian minority in Transylvania are only Magyarized Romanians. Co-existing and blending was very much two way street and the ethnic proportions of Transylvania are again a very controversial topic. Zello 19:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

3, If you think that you are not able cooperate with me than you should request the community for comment about the article/my person (RfC). Look up the Tutorial about how these things work! Zello 19:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

At the Hungarian conquest, the Hungarian nation numbered between 250,000 and 450,000 people. Any reliable sources for these numbers? Greier 18:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

A very official source: http://www.magyarorszag.hu/angol/orszaginfo/tortenelem/tortenelem - about 500 000 Zello 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? It`s very "official" and really scientific... Greier 17:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The official homepage of the Hungarian Government. Historical section written by László Kontler, Professor of History in the University of Budapest. Zello 17:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

László Kontler is a well known right wing nationalist and the Faculty of History at the University of Budapest is the place where graduated abb. 1/4 of the leadership members of the far right extremists groups in Hungary. The source is of course official, but nevertheless racist and nationalistic ! Not a serious historian outside Hungary would agree with estimations above 75.000 regarding the size of the Hungarian tribes at the time of the conquest (9th century AD) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.150.157 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what are you talking about? Kontler is also a professor at CEU, a well-known anti-nationalistic multicultural University, founded by Soros, whom most extreme nationalist would like to see hanged by the rope at the earliest convenience. To label him as a right-wing nationalist is not a simple distortion of facts: it's an outright lie. As for numbers, it is a well-known historical fact that Hungary could muster about 30,000 armed warriors in the 10th century. To put the total number at the time of the conquest UNDER 75,000 is simply obtuse, not even worth arguing with. Zigomer trubahin (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cumanians, Pechenegs, Jazones, Germans and other Western-European settlers" "Turks" etc.. Tatars and Russians not even mentioned.

I don't think there was too much blending with Tatars and Russians during their occupation. Tatars only destroyed the country and went away in a half year time, and Russians lived in secluded barracks. But probably there were some village girls seduced by horny soldiers... :) Zello 12:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all an expert in this, but look what happened during the war in Yogoslavia a decade ago: Soldiers killed the male population and raped the women. This is I would call the real "basic instinct" and I think this might have happened when Tatars killed half of the Hu population in the 13th century: they raped the other half. I also heard about the lots of abortions made in Budapest hospitals in 1945 after the Soviet liberation... But this is only my opinion. I also agree we are very similar to our neghbours, but then it should be put this way - our faces are similar, our skin is of similar colour, etc. Genetics is very tricky, phenotype does not always reflect the genotype. --KIDB 13:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right. Only we don't have any data... Zello 14:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion: "Due to all these influences Magyars became genetically more or less similar to the inhabitants of the states neighbouring Hungary." This doensn't sound too scientific to me. If we are talking about genetic similarities, we should be using results from scientific research. --KIDB 12:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a debate about the question on Hungarian prehistory talkpage in the recent past. There a guy brought datas of some scientific research to prove his claim. I have serious doubts but I'm not an expert in genetics. Here I only tried to take the edge of the original - certainly exaggerated - sentence until somebody do some research. Zello 12:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this needed? Sounds funny. You know, there's a trend to nationalize ethnic hungarians in the surrounding countries of nowadays Hungary, by creating false sources and/or simply declare him/her as an ethnic local despite the facts - this sentence seems as a semi-nationalization of all the hungarian people. Really funny, altough it is true, but you know, then we could write this to any ethnic groups because mixed relations (forced or not) happened everywhere. The surrounding people became gnetically more or less similar to their neighbours, and they to their neighbours etc. etc. also. --VinceB 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this happened everywhere and certainly other peoples should write about their genetical history also. If they don't write that's not our problem. The section contains a lot of info and you said yourself that they are true. Zello 02:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't there a genetic study done on a number of Hungarian groups a while back, which included the Paloc, Csangos, the Budapest population among others, and which compared them to a number of groups-Turks, Finns, Slavs, Germans, Iranians? KVLG (talk) 06:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good category. To say that there is an "Ugric People" is to reiterate an outdated and false assumption regarding a connection between linguistics and ethnicity. You know, the one that commonly gets repeated by anti-Finno-Ugricists who pretend that proponents of the Finno-Ugric theory are arguing for a common people when it is only and ever will be a linguistic theory. Its like calling Americans a Germanic people because the language, English, is classified as Germanic. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 14:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably a better category name would be something like "Ugric-speaking peoples". I have the same disagreement with the "Finnic peoples" category too. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 15:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. No argument Andrew Dalby 16:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this research only proves that blood types don't show anything about the origin of peoples. There was certaninly no mixing between Serbs and Spaniards or between Magyars and Greeks. I propose to delete - not because I'm against the claim that Magyars and neighbouring peoples are genetically similar but because this research didn't prove this. Zello 10:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The cited web site also seems like research that has not been peer reviewed. Dpotop 13:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In the recent edit of PANNONIAN: "According to one genetical research based on the blood types, the Magyars share 99% genetical similarity with Serbs, 97% with Greeks, 97% with Austrians, 97% with Albanians, 96% with Romanians, 96% with Bulgarians, 94% with Slovaks, 94% with Spanish, 93% with Polish, 91% with Turks, 91% with Czechs, etc. [4]"

I visited the quoted web page - it is not about genetics, it simply compares the ratios of different blood types in certain ethnic groups. I did not delete this new sentence, only changed the text accordingly, but I am still not certain if this is scientifically significant at all. Do these numbers mean that Spanish had more ganetic influence on Hungarians thna Poles did? I doubt, and I am still very sceptical about the whole paragraph. (I would be interested in reading results of real scientific studies, however.) --KIDB 13:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just thought that it is interesting research. And why Spanish people cannot be related to Hungarians and Serbs? Many different peoples settled in Spain during the Great Migrations and it was also ruled by Arabs for several centuries, so who knows who were main ancestors of Spanish people. PANONIAN (talk) 14:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I can recommend you a book: "How to lie with statistics". If that research were true research, it would have been published (and peer reviewed in the process). Dpotop 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

But then, if you want some real data, take a look at this [5]. Dpotop 19:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, this issue has been extensively debated at [6] so I guess you might want to check the discussion and the research cited there.

Sweet! :) Dpotop 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What ever. If Magyars do not want to be related with Serbs, it is their choice to believe in what they want to believe. These days it is not easy to convince even Montenegrins and Bosniaks about their Serb origin, so I can imagine how harder it would be with Magyars. Just a joke of course. :))) PANONIAN (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this is not about not being similar to Serbs. It is quite obvious that Hungarians and Serbs must have a lot of genetic similarity for many reasons. We have lived in the same geographical area for more than 1000 years, there were significant migrations during the Ottoman occupation, and there were Serbs settled in Central Hungary in the 18th century. The only problem is that the research you quoted was done by amateurs and not by serious researchers--KIDB 07:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

Ditto. Dpotop 07:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The article states that there are around 9.5 million Magyars in Hungary and cites the 2001 census as a source. In the table a precise figure of 9,416,015 is given. However, this figure is actually the number of Hungarian citizens (resident in Hungary at the time of the census) who described themselves as Magyar in the census. A further 546,315 "did not wish to answer". Almost certainly some of the latter are also Magyar. Further complicating the picture is the (estimated) several hundred thousand Roma in Hungary some of whom may have described themselves as Magyar, others as Roma, and others refused to answer. My point is that the precise figure cited in the table cannot be deduced from the census data. Other sources giving estimates of the Magyar population should be used.

The table claims that "more than half of Hungarians are Roman Catholic". This claim is unsourced and confusing (because it refers to Hungarians rather than Magyars. I would strongly contest this figure. I believe it is taken from census data for Hungary. Thus it refers to Hungarian citizens and not ethnic Hungarians (ie Magyars). In other words, it includes the Roma minority (which is more strongly Roman Catholic than the Magyar majority). In any case self-indentification as Roman Catholic in a census is not the same as being a practising (or even a lapsed) Roman Catholic. Unless someone can provide a verifiable source for the data, I will remove the percentages. Scott Moore 14:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't remove the data. You are right that many of these people are not practising the religion regularly but these are the official census data, based on people's self-identification, and there is no better way to establish their number until the next census will use another method (probably). You can see that the strong majority of Romas identified him/herself as Magyars in the census - there are complicated reasons of this, but - again - better stick to the census data than delete everything or made uncertain calculations. Zello 15:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The census data is considered official by the Hungarian government for 2001 and therefore is the best possible source for demographic data (until they perform another census). It isn't within the scope of Wikipedia to audit the answers or second-guess why some non-Magyar Hungarian citizen may have claimed themselves as Magyar or visa versa. This is really no different from any other census or the way people answer them. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The uncertainties mentioned by Scott Moore are exactly why the article gives approximations rather than precise figures; still, the census is a verifiable source, the approximations in the article appear solidly based and are therefore helpful to readers. They shouldn't be removed unless an even better source can be found (which seems unlikely to me). Andrew Dalby 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking, if the opening paragraph in this article says, "In English they are more often called Hungarians", shouldn't this page be moved to Hungarian people? I know the term "Hungarian" in English had a wider meaning, but not anymore. I doubt you'd find many ethnic Romanians who call themselves Hungarians. All inhabitants of the Persian Empire were historically called "Persians", but today that's only the name for ethnic Persians, which account 51% of Iran's population. What do other people think? —Khoikhoi 03:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A similar point has been discussed already, see Magyars vs. Hungarians above. KissL 14:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In the previous discussion I tried to explain that for an English-speaker (or at least an American), there is no ambiguity in what Hungarian means. My Magyar relatives never say they are Magyar in English nor do my Slovak relatives (who came from Miskolc) say they are Hungarian in English. Nor will a schoolchild know to look up Magyar for Hungarian ethnic group. Khoikhoi points out that semantics can and do shift. Educate about the semantic shift in the articles, not the titles. I wonder, is Magyar used in other language Wikipedias where the language uses the "Hungar/Ongr" name? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 18:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...I'm not sure. From reading the discussion above, it appears that a minority of users seem to support the current title. If I made a requested move, would you guys vote? I recall that there was some objections when an admin moved Republic of Moldova to Moldova, because in Romanian the region of Moldavia is called Moldova. In English however the most common meaning is the country. Anyways, do you think we should re-visit the suggestion of the move? —Khoikhoi 05:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We can re-visit it. A vote would maybe attract more opinions and thus give us a clearer view. I personally think that the current title doesn't hurt much – those schoolchildren looking for the Hungarians will end up here in no time –, but Hungarian people or Hungarians would be a better title. I'm not convinced by Juro's assertion that expert texts use the name Magyars, because his opinion may well be biased by the fact that in Slovak, this semantic shift hasn't gone nearly as far as in English. KissL 10:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

See e.g. the links presented in the old discussion and the old discussion, it is even used in non-expert texts. And I repeat for the nth time, this has nothing to do with Slovak. Juro 10:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I was interested by Sborsody's last question above (is Magyar used in other language Wikipedias where the language uses the "Hungar/Ongr" name?). In some Wikipedias, 'Magyars' or the equivalent is treated very briefly, just as a historical term, the name for the invaders of the Pannonian plains in medieval times. For example, Bulgarian; Catalan. In others (just as in English at present) 'Magyars' is the heading for a long article about the Hungarian people, medieval and modern. For example, Czech and German. I haven't yet come across a Wikipedia that has separate articles for "Hungarians" and "Magyars", but maybe I just haven't looked far enough yet. Andrew Dalby 11:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

What parts of Africa or Asia would have any significant populations of Hungarians? I'd always thought the only Europeans who live in Africa are the British (in South Africa, Zimbabwe), some French (in Morocco), and the Spanish (in the west African islands). In Asia, there are Russians (in Asian Russia, the "-stans", and some in China) and the Portuguese (in Macau). Where are the Hungarians in Africa or Asia? Le Anh-Huy 06:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Few people went to South-Africa in the 1980s, I don't think there is any Hungarian community anywhere else. Zello 20:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This increase was partly due to the fact that non-Magyar population of the Kingdom was subjected to Magyarisation in the period between 1867 (the Ausgleich) and World War I.

"Magyarization" was never forced, just suggested, without --> "" <-- these. It was an answer to Panslavism, wich faned the flames of slavic nationalism. In fact a step against a possible "inland ethnic civil war".

== Later genetic influences ==

Besides the various peoples mentioned above, who mixed with the Magyars during their long way to and at their arrival in Hungary, the Magyars also include a genetic input from other peoples settled in this territory after the arrival of the Magyars, for example the Cumanians, Pechenegs, Jazones, Germans and other Western-European settlers in the Middle Ages. Romanians and Slovaks have lived together and blended with Magyars since early medieval times. Turks who occupied the central part of present-day Hungary from c. 1541 to c. 1699 and especially the various nations (Germans, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats and others), that settled depopulated territories after the departure of the Turks in the 18th century all added their important contribution in composing the modern Hungarian nation. Both Jewish and Roma (Gypsy) minorities have been living in Hungary since the Middle Ages. Due to all these influences Magyars became genetically more or less similar to the inhabitants of the states neighbouring Hungary.

If it would be true, than the Kingdom of Hungary wouldn't be multiethnic. They lived next to each other in peace. Mainly. --VinceB 13:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. First, Magyarisation was imposed by law and other administrative acts. Moreover, it was sometimes violent due to the assistance of police. But what is more important, how can you explain all those huge changes in the demographic structure if you do not take magyarisation into account? Second, the two models (multi-ethnic society and melting pot) are just ideal types and they never exist in they pure form (probably except for the apartheid regime). Intermarriage in the Kingdom of Hungary can be proved by numerous genealogies of noble and burgher families. And the differences between present-day Hungarians and their neighbors are really minor (this is true for most European countries, since 80% of the variance can be explained by the palaeolithic distribution of population and only 20% by later migrations). For example, the haplotype HG16 was found only in 3% of the Hungarian sample. To conclude, I do not see any reason to erase these two sections as you suggested. Instead, I think that a similar section should be included in the articles about other European nations. Tankred 15:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Abt 1.5 million ppl migrated from the KoH before WWI, nearly all were minorities.

It has an other reading also: the neighbours became similar to hungarians by genetics, because of mixed marriages, wich is not shown. Quite one sided this is, and I've never ever read such a ridiculous paragraph. Genetcally everybody (you and me also) 90-97% similar to a chimp also. :) --VinceB 10:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not make ridiculous remarks. You know very well that I discussed genetic variance between people. Tankred 15:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence about genetics I think quite dubious. I saw different genetical studies and the only thing I accepted as a conclusion that you can prove virtually everything with studies like that and also the opposite one. But the paragraph contains factually correct historical informations and it's sure that Magyars mixed with these people in the course of history. Zello 11:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that those studies are not perfect because the sample is usually too small. I do not cite this research in the article, but I have just used it here to illustrate why a paragraph about "later influences" should not be erased. Tankred 15:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Zello, please don't put back without a consensus. I got my problems written down here, above. --VinceB 11:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually there was consensus about the paragraph, and until you can prove that there was no intermarriage between Magyars and other people (that's impossible) the paragraph is factually correct. Zello 11:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, instead of becoming slavic, they became hungarian. --VinceB 14:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In the subsection History after 900 at some point it is stated that:

• Some historians support the theory that the Magyars' percentage in the Carpathian Basin was at an almost constant 80% during the Middle Ages...
• Some Slovak and Romanian historians tend to emphasise the multi-ethnic nature of the Kingdom even in the Middle Ages and argue that the drastic change in the ethnic structure hypothesized by Hungarian historians in fact did not occur.

In my opinion this formulation, although it presents both theories as it should, it is not NPOV. In this form it implies that some historians from all over the world agree with the first statement, while only some historians from only two countries agree with the second statement. I therefore think that we should either say:

• "Some Hungarian historians support..." and "Some Slovak and Romanian historians tend to..." (version that I proposed but was reverted by User:Korossyl)

or

• eliminate nationalities from both statements and only keep "Some historians..." in both cases. Alexrap 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alexrap.
I understand what you're saying: as the article stood before, it DID imply that "some historians from all over the world agree with the first statement, while only some historians from only two countries agree with the second statement." However, I do not believe that this is a matter of POV or NPOV -- it's a matter of whether the implication is true or not. Are you absolutely sure that it is not the case that the 80% theory is widely accepted, and that only some historians dispute it? For that matter, if only Hungarian historians accept the 80% theory and only Romanian and Slovak historians accept the multi-ethnic theory, then what is the widely held view outside of these (biased) circles?
It's unfortunate that the original wording had not sources cited; I'd really like to see some. If none are available, then we should work out a compromise.
Korossyl 00:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

As you also say, at the moment there is no reference given for that implication (so we should somehow eliminate it). The truth is that it is impossible to know exactly what happened in those time (unfortunately history is not maths), so everyone is free to speculate anything. As far as I know, the "widely held view" (at least in Transylvania) is the multi-ethnic one, but since the subject is quite sensitive, my opinion is that Wikipedia should just present the two distinct views (without implying anything). Alexrap 15:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay! It's a real shame about the lack of sources, and I'm in no position to try to find any. I'm going to try to change the wording just a bit, so let me know what you think. Korossyl 06:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess that your new formulation is fairly NPOV, so, in my opinion, we should keep it. Alexrap 12:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Viking (Varangian) neighbours

---

Already briefly discussed, and edited, was the mention of Norman/Viking/Varangian neighbours of the Magyars. Vikings it is, but that doesn't seem right at all: I. Vikings weren't a people, but a Scandinavian warrior class (raiders, explorers, traders) and the use of that name is commonly restricted to the Norsemen/Normans who raided and invaded Western Europe [[7]]; II. Varangian is the appropriate term for the Scandinavian enterprises in Eastern Europe [[8]], but, again, the Varangians aren't a people.

Since the Varangians were the rapidly assimilating ruling class of the Slav peoples of future Russia, I think the phrase 'Vikings and the eastern Slavs' should be changed into something like 'the emerging Varangian (Russian?) nation (state?) and other eastern Slavs' (eastern Slav groups). 24.132.233.114 00:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

An unregistered user changed the number of Hungarians currently living in Hungary from 9,416,015 (in 2001) to 10,061,000 (in 2007), without updating the reference for this number. The reference from the article still says 9,416,015 and the new number does not seem to be based on any source whatsoever. Could someone provide the reference for the new 2007 number? Some days ago, as I couldn't find a new reference, I rewrote the 2001 number (as the only sourced number we have), but User:Öcsi reverted my edit. Öcsi, no, I'm not User:Bonaparte and I really hope that you won't start behaving like him. Alexrap 13:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were him because he always reduces the numbers of Hungarians in every article (once he wrote that there oly living 8.5 Million Hungarians in H; maybe in his dreams :). I will change my edit to 9.5-9.6 Million Hungarians, because the official census only counted 9.7 Mio people out of 10.1 Mio living in H. --Öcsi 23:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that although you said you will, you still haven't changed your edit. The only official source still says 9,416,015. Alexrap 13:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You should buy glasses. I have changed it, but not in the Infobox. Now it's done. Nevertheless, I have changed my edit.--Öcsi 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for sarcastic jokes. The reality is that you hadn't changed your edit from the infobox and I didn't need glasses to see that. Also, I cannot understand why you wrote 9.5-9.6 million if the Hungarian 2001 Census recorded 9.4 million and since then the population has decreased, rather than increased. Also, you still haven't corrected the total number from the infobox, which should be 14.5 million, as it was before the unsourced edits. Alexrap 14:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's 15 Million and the 2001 census didn't recorded everyone (myself included). Do you understand? --Öcsi 14:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, that's a great argument. Well done! Things are simple: can you reference the 9.5-9.6 and the 15 million numbers? If you can, please do so. If not, try to keep this article consistent with its own sources. And remember that your own "original research" is not a valid reference. Alexrap 14:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Here you have one: [9]. You can search other ones. But if you can't bring any reference which proves that the 400.000 not registrated Hu citizens aren't Hungarians then your argumentation has no validity too. --Öcsi 15:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing things:

1) The reference you just gave refers to Hungarian language speakers, which is not the same thing with Hungarians. There are many Romas, Jews, Germans etc. in Hungary that speak Hungarian but are not Hungarians. Also, the reference is based on data from 1997. Unfortunately, Hungary's population has been decreasing since 1997, so even the Hungarian speakers are probably less than 15 million now.

2) I have no idea what 400,000 you are talking about. The Census results are pretty clear. Anything else is just original research. Alexrap 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You have obviously not read the census datas. Please read them again. --Öcsi 15:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The 2001 Census data says that 9,416,045 Hungarians were living in Hungary in 2001. As I said, anything else is just original research. Are there any other comments from other users, as this discussion is becoming pointless, since your are trying hard not to understand what I'm saying? Alexrap 15:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you stupid? What's about the section "Didn't want to answer"? --Öcsi 15:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that you deserve an answer, but considering that the ones who didn't want to answer are Hungarians is nothing by OR. And if we are to make any sort of OR, we could say that they are probably anything but Hungarians. As there is no reason whatsoever for someone in any country not to declare the ethnicity that is a large majority. Alexrap 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that we should always use official census numbers for demographic data. It seems to me that Alex is right with the 9,4 million number. Although no census is perfect and there were certainly mistakes we don't have any better source. Zello 17:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to know what exactly is depicted in the image at right and the year of the scene depicted. Specifically, I want to know if one of the kings pictured is supposed to be Berengar I of Italy, the first west European ruler to meet the invading Magyars (and be defeated by them). I am expanding that article and am looking for a usable image to spruce it up. Srnec 05:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean the seated king at the left? Looks like it could be Svatopluk of Moravia being offered a white horse in exchange for "land and water". --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay. The picture portrays many scenes, though. Is any of them of Berengar? Srnec 20:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the Turkic people view: area of origin in the central asian steppes, fighting style based on horsback riding and reflex bogen arches, Pannonia's as area of European settlement rapresenting the most western extension of the Eurasian steppes continuum with its "Puszta",... all these points have been mentioned before, I would like to add one more point that may help explain the ethimology of the name Hungarian. Has anybody considered a link with the Uyghur people of central Asia? The cultural description would match quite easily http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_people The ancestors of the Uyghur include the Huns (燻). ... the Uyghur emerged as the leaders of a new turkic coalition force called the "Toquz Oghuz". In 744 A.D. the Uyghur, together with other related subject tribes (the Basmyl and Qarluq), defeated the Göktürk Khanate and founded the Uyghur Empire at Mount Ötüken, which lasted for about 100 years (744-840 A.D.). [edit] Uyghur Empire: the golden age (744-840 A.D.) Properly called the On-Uyghur (ten Uyghurs) and Toquz-Oghuz (nine tribes) Orkhon Khanate, the Uyghur Empire stretched from the Caspian Sea[citation needed] to Manchuria and lasted from 744 to 840 A.D..

From Uy-gur, to Un-gurs, to Un-gars, to Hun-gars the steps are really very small. Has any one analyzed this possibility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Papidi (talk • contribs) 07:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Are they a Turkic people? The Magyar horse riding skills makes me think so, but I don't know for sure Tourskin 23:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess there are more things to make a Turkic people...

On the other hand, can you imagine how many of them cannot ride the horse at all? :)

--peyerk 20:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It is an important point there... The "official" history of Magyars is written here in the article. This theory is mainly funded by Habsurg, later Soviet politics, mainly to integrate Hungarians to European culture. However, I believe in the "unofficial" version, which is reflected in our Myths, folk tales, food (goulash, for example), the ancient writing (rovasiras), the early Christianity differing from Judeo-Christianity, and recently getting prooven by genetical studies. This theory is saying Magyars are descendants of Scythians - Huns - Avars, where none of these nations were homogenous. Scythians are from SOUTH of Ural (answering to a talk box above) where they met Ugric nations and had exchanged language. Coming back to your question, yes we have a lot of common with Turks, (and Mongols, and other horseriding nations) as they are also derived from Scythians. I firmly believe there will be a major breakthrough in the knowledge we know from the origin of this people, giving us a lot of intersting discussion. Abdulka 16:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Abdulka, there are some linguists who study a phenomenon known as language shift. There are certain known mechanisms of how it occurs. Sometimes a larger population can shift their language to the language spoken by the smaller elite or the smaller elite shifts their language to that of the general populace. Take for example in England, the Norman rulers spoke French and this had a great influence upon the English of the common man (a minority influencing the majority). On the flip side of this the Turkic Bulgar rulers stopped speaking Turkic and adopted Slavic of the people they ruled over (the majority influencing the minority). When we talk about how Magyars ended up with an Ugric language we need to think about language shift. The questions are many and the answers are not easy to find since there isn't a lot of data to work with. Both the "official" and "unofficial" theories you mention are possible but they cannot be proven without an investigation of language shift in proto-Magyars. The reason the Finno-Ugric "official" theory tends to be more accepted is precisely due to the thought that it is easier and faster for a Turkic-speaking and/or Iranic-speaking elite to change over to the Ugric of the majority than it is for the minority speakers to influence the majority. This kind of language shift tends to be more common. For the minority to change the language of a majority like in England, it takes a longer amount of time and still it is clear that English is Germanic and not a Romance language. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 17:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

One problem is that language shift occurs when there is a majority or an elite giving their language to the minority or the ruled. In our case the ugric people originally speaking proto-Hungarian were neither an elite nor a majority.

--peyerk 09:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, there isn't enough data to answer all the questions. There is a big black hole of information which makes it impossible for you to make such a claim that the Ugric speakers did not have a majority as it makes it impossible for me to obtain solid support that they were a majority. All that can be done is to make reference to common sense (such as why would a people not be a majority who live in a region so near their theoretical Urheimat?) and to make attempts to extrapolate the data from recent genetic and older anthropological discoveries on Conquest-era graves showing a clear difference between the smaller ruling class and the larger population (despite the fact that graves don't show language). --Stacey Doljack Borsody 14:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

"it is easier and faster for a Turkic-speaking and/or Iranic-speaking elite to change over to the Ugric of the majority than it is for the minority speakers to influence the majority."

Why is that? This sort of language shift driven by a small elite of new rulers happened in the much larger Turkey (and in Azerbaidjan) in the course of - at the most - just one or two centuries.

How do you know that? As late as the early 20th century, there were still plenty of people in Anatolia who spoke Greek and Armenian, and there are still speakers of Talysh, Kurdish, Tat and several Caucasian languages in Azerbaijan, so obviously not all of the indigenous population abandoned their original languages (unless you want to claim that they were all re-introduced later, for which you'd need very good reasons). In Konya, there were Christian Greeks even if 1895, although, of course, I do not know if they were descendants of the pre-Seljuk population. It is always impossible to prove how quickly an autochthonous population gave up their original language in premodern times, in the absence of reliable censuses recording native languages, though sometimes you have indications that they were not assimilated yet at a certain point, or, of course, were never fully assimilated, if speakers of the autochthonous language are still recorded in modern times. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Ugric-speaking people were always on the western side of the Urals while this article states that the earliest Finno-Ugric settlements were on the eastern side. As far as I know from Russian history, Ob-Ugrics were pushed to the eastern side only after confrontation with the growing Russian empire. Taking a look at the Finno-Ugric languages article I see no mention about the eastern side. Someone want to clarify? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 17:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good point, this is where the "artificial" history is not working. It is most probably SOUTH (though there is no firm evidence so far). Pls refer to my views in "Turkic people?" Abdulka 16:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the commonly held scientific view is that proto-Magyars moved south (from the western side) and that they encountered Iranic-speaking people. This isn't part of "artificial" history. Moreover, the Iranic influence (Scythians, etc.) extends to other Finno-Ugric groups too, not just proto-Magyars. But I was asking about the earliest Finno-Ugric settlements mentioned in the article, not proto-Magyars. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 17:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole regional population "map" is all screwed up. You have western countries (Germany) listed under eastern, and eastern not listed under eastern (serbia, romania etc.). You also have Turkey listed under Africa instead of Eurasia. I would reorganize all these myself, but being a bit of a newbie to Wiki editing, I took one look at the way it's organized on the editing page, and was lost lol. JanderVK

The first sentence of the lead says. " Hungarians (Hungarian: Magyarok) or Magyars[11] are an ethnic group primarily associated with Hungary." The infobox uses Hungarians (Magyarok), so all the main article concent uses the term "Hungarians", while the article uses Hungarian people. This looks extremely silly, that even the bolded intro in the lead won't match the title, one or the other should be changed so they at least match and consistent within the most important parts of the article (title, lead, infobox). Hobartimus 16:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to be edited by someone with a native or near-native level of English. For a start, I suggest correcting the introductory section as follows:

"Magyars have been the main inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary that existed through most of the second millennium. After the Treaty of Trianon Magyars have become minority inhabitants on the territory of..." changed to "Magyars were the main inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary that existed through most of the second millennium. After the Treaty of Trianon, Magyars became minority inhabitants on the territory of..."

"but unlike the Magyars living within the former Kingdom of Hungary, only a minority of these preserves the Hungarian language and tradition." changed to "but, unlike the Magyars living in areas that were formerly part of the Kingdom of Hungary, only a minority of these retains the Hungarian language and traditions" "There was a referendum in Hungary in December 2004 on whether to grant Hungarian citizenship to Magyars living outside Hungary's borders (i.e. without requiring a permanent residence in Hungary). The referendum failed due to the insufficient voter turnout, and caused some recruitment of the local nationalist movements and parties in the surrounding countries." Well, this is so poorly written, that it is not fully comprehensible. Indeed, I do not see the justification for placing this text in the introduction; it refers to a failed referendum that was of minor political import. I suggest removing or, at the very least, changing to: "Hungary held a referendum in December 2004 on whether to grant Hungarian citizenship to Magyars living outside Hungary's borders. The referendum failed due to the insufficient voter turnout." I have already removed the gibberish about recruitment (possibly the author meant 'resentment'). Scott Moore 12:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the numbers in the Infobox. I have good reason to do it, this is not some nationalistic blowing up numbers. Here comes the reasoning:

I am using the same census data as used before: which was used as a reference to the old numbers, however note, that in the 2001 data there are two entries "Did not wish to answer" and "Unknown" amounting together for 570,537 counts.

It is safe an prudent to assume, that of those the same ratio is ethnic Hungarian, as is (a) the ratio of them among the declared ethnicities; In fact, of course, it could happen, that a certain minority does not declare more often, than ethnic Hungarians, however, whether it's this way or not can be verified well by (b) the ratio of ethnic Hungarians of the 1990 data (which did not have those categories, so everyone had to declare. Actually, it's methodologically more correct to use the 1990 ratio, but I am going to use the smaller ratio to be diligent, so that by no means can anyone claim I'm blowing up numbers:

Let H the number of declared ethnic Hungarians in 2001, so H = 9,416,045.

Let U the number of "Unknown" and "Did not answer", then U = 570,537.

Let R_2001 the ratio of ethnic Hungarians within the declared ethnicities, then R_2001 = 9,416,045 / 9,734,436 = 96.73%.

Let R_1990 the ratio of ethnic Hungarians within the inhabitants of Hungary, then R_1990 = 10,142,072 / 10,374,823 = 97.94%.

Then HA, the number more close to the actual number of ethnic Hungarians in Hungary according to the 2001 census data is HA = H + min{R_2001 * U, R_1990 * U} = 9,416,045 + min{551,876; 558,795} = 9,967,921.

I do believe, that noone can fight these numbers, but I'm open for discussion. Please do not revert them without discussion! Szabi 17:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not about "fighting numbers", but your "calculations" are very much original research, which is against Wikipedia policy and practice. I'm quite surprised that no Hungarian editor spotted it yet. I'm not going to get involved into this though, but it should be a matter of principle. Just another point: very funny the way you ask people not to do what you just did, i.e. changing the article before engaging into a discussion. Alexrap 12:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alex! My numbers are not original research! I'll cite Wikipedia's entry on O.R.: "Original Reasearch is research that is not exclusively based on a summary, review or synthesis of earlier publications on the subject of research. The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified).".

Now, what I did was exactly summary, review and synthesis, presenting existing knowledge (census data) in a different form (I reviewed the data, and synthetised the "did not wish to answer" fraction into the other data in a diligent way). I did not go out and count the people, but presented the data in a more full summary (previous version of the article just disregarded the information contained in the "did not answer" etc. data line).

I am confident (see quotation above) that what I did was according to Wikipedia principles and not violating them, however I'm very open for discussions about that as well.

At the same time, I do admit, that your last remark has validity, this request of mine sounds somewhat out of place. However, what do you do, if you post a Talk topic and no-one answers? (Happened to me before, true though, with a less active article) -- I think what I did was not to bold: I did not dodgily change data, but explained in detail what I did and why I did it. Szabi 16:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking more closely at WP:NOR, you'll find the following: "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" (emphasis added). This, together with the fact that census results are explicitly defined as primary sources in the preceding paragraph, means Alex is right that your numbers, although most probably correct, are OR as long as no secondary source with the same interpretation of the census results can be presented. Since, however, your interpretation is correct, it shouldn't pose a huge problem to find one, in which case it can be used as reference. KissL 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously any census that has an unresolved "did not wish to answer" in them should never be used as hard data no matter how recent. If next time 20-30-50 percent won't bother to answer, like they don't bother to vote and such you propose to write 5 million as the correct number? If these numbers get challanged we will have to use the 1990 census data which didn't have the "no answer" option, as the most recent reliable data. No answer means that those ppl were simply left out from that part of the census, so in that regard(about ethnicity) it was only a partial census with partial results. These partial results cannot be misrepresented as if they were correct final numbers. Hobartimus 17:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hungary 9,967,921  (2001) 

please look at hungary article for 2007 count. Mallerd 17:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess you are replying to my entry on the talk page (I don't understand why you created a new section then). The article says 9.4mn (that's the same number which stood in the info box before my calculation) and states the 2007 year next to it. However, the reference given at the bottom will lead to numbers featuring 2001! The same numbers I used.

I really do believe, that the given year (2007) is wrong, and that there has not been a census (they used to be every 10 years). Also the given reference is suggesting the wrongness of the 2007 year. Even if new numbers come out, a calculation similar to given above is more diligent than using the raw numbers declared Hungarian.

Thanks for pointing out, that the number in the main article was wrong. I'll correct that. Szabi 12:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah sorry didn't see your section ;) nice calculation :O Mallerd 22:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I wonder that there is no picture of Ferenc Puskas at the top of the infobox. He is that symbol for hungarian football. --89.182.130.134 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this article could be improved by having more written about the Hungarian subgroups. The Szekely are mentioned somewhat in passing, the Jasz and Csango only in the 'See also' section, and nothing about the Paloc, Matyo, and őrs (which I saw in some anthropological study once mentioning the highest incidence of "original" Magyar DNA existed amongst them. Like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&list_uids=8935316&cmd=Retrieve&indexed=google I think). --Stacey Doljack Borsody 01:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian prehistory is being fixed up so it is no longer a POV fork. I noticed, in reviewing the "mainstream" Finno-Ugric theory presented in this article, that what is written is just as bad as the POV fork. It claims things like a Western Siberian/East of the Urals urheimat for Finno-Ugric without citation when "mainstream" Finno-Ugricists would say it was on the western side of the Urals. This page will need a lot of fixing up as well. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This statement contradicts Finno-Ugric languages. Is this claim based upon Russian archeology?

During the fourth millennium BC, some of the earliest settlements of the Finno-Ugric-speaking peoples were situated east of the Ural Mountains, where they hunted and fished.

This statement also needs sourcing. I'm assuming the intent here is to talk about the ancient Iranic influence upon the Magyar language. If so, it is not difficult to find a source, but I'm pretty sure no one knows which Iranic group was the influence so who is saying it was Sarmatians?

During the following centuries, the proto-Magyars continued to live in the wood-steppes and steppes southeast of the Ural Mountains, strongly influenced by their immediate neighbours, the ancient Sarmatians.

--Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Who says this? The Middle-Volga region is regarded as the Finno-Ugric language urheimat. Why would Magyars have to have moved there?

In the fourth and fifth centuries AD, the proto-Magyars moved to the west of the Ural Mountains to the area between the southern Ural Mountains and the Volga River known as Bashkiria (Bashkortostan).

Only Constantine wrote about Levedia and he didn't put it between the Volga, Don, and Donets...

In the early eighth century, some of the proto-Magyars moved to the Don River to an area between the Volga, Don and the Seversky Donets rivers called Levedia.

--Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Is really Mathias Corvinus an ethnic Hungarian ? How can you put him there ? He was half Romanian, half Hungarian, it is all known. More, by paternal side, which one can say it's most important, he was Romanian. So, at least it is not its place here, where you must put the most representative ethnic Hungarians ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Madalinfocsa (talk • contribs) 12:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

One of his grandparants was a Wallachian, who came to Hungary and received land there so he was 25% Wallachian 75% Hungarian. Hobartimus (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In this case some tags are needed, because some aspects are controversial or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints, because some portions does not cite any references or sources and also because some editor User:Dahn insists ethnicity is a subjective matter and that this kind of tags are absolutely needed in articles which are adressing to the ethnic group of a specific population.Example is the article romanians. I'm just following his example Adrianzax (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, you have some dispute on the Romanians page and now you try to escalate it here without a resolution to your original dispute. No thanks. Also if you think you will gain an advantage 'there' by editing 'here' that's highly unlikely. You will only gain a disadvantage if more people read your contributions and find out why certain sources cannot be trusted according to you. Hobartimus (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What He think about himself? Mathias rex Hungarorom how interpreted about his family root? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.212.202 (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the numbers in the infobox refer to (no citations), but it seems they're about Hungary itself, which is misleading - not all Hungarian citizens are Magyars (arguably Hungarian Jews, for instance), and certainly not all Hungarians live in Hungary. Better to put something like "Roman Catholic, Protestant (mainly Reformed, Lutheran, Unitarian), Unaffiliated". Biruitorul (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Whilst the intro is good, it is a little confusing. It states that On-ogur derives means ten tribes. Did this stem from the Western Gokturk khanate, the Khazar khanate or the 10 Magyar tribes ? Hxseek (talk) 04:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikinist is hellbent on changing the wording of 'the most widely-accepted theory [of a common Finno-Ugric origin' to 'the traditional theory'. While his source contesting the theory should be given space in the article, I think the wording he is sticking to makes the academically most universally accepted origin theory appear unlikely. I think 'most widely-accepted' should stay. I'd like to ask the input of third parties on this one. Caius (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Caius Hxseek (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur, "widely-accepted" is fine, it would be nice to have a clear reference that says just that from a reliable source to put this issue completely to rest. man with one red shoe (talk) 06:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I re-worded things and tried to give some sources. If someone could find better sources, I'd be glad if they added them. Caius (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The article contradicts itself. Lets see:

1: Finno-Ugric peoples have (present tense, so currently) a common origin. Origin means by default the origin of population.

=> Modern Finno-Ugric peoples are genetically alike.

=> There is a genetical continuity between the present F-U speakers and those who brought the language.

However, the article also says "Modern Hungarian-speaking populations seem to be specifically European, and the results demonstrate that significant genetic differences exist between the ancient and recent Hungarian-speaking populations, and no genetic continuity is seen."

The upper claim is a historical view, based on a belief that language always tells about ancerstors. The latter is of an actual science. If origin of language is meant, it should be told. While the Finno-Ugric languages have obviously common roots, the common origin of populations speaking F-U languages is pseudoscientist. But you are of course not meaning this, so maybe you should clarify the article?

Wikinist (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Since we have two seperate sources referring to the same thing (DNA research), and one says 'no genetic continuity is seen' and the other says '13% retain the uralic genes', I will amend the article accordingly, stating both opinions, and referencing both sources. I hope that's all right with you. Caius (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you please start to use original correct Latinized Hanti (hard H) instead of wrong Russian origin cyrillic Khanti. Based to cyrillic X. Thank you. By the way, Obi Ugrians means Great River (Obi) Ugris. Unkarilaiset (Hungarians) lived on the other side (ie. western) of Urali. Pääbo: Uirala / Uirali. For more detailed early history published in Finland: Eero Kuussaari; Suomen Suvun Tiet, Helsinki 1935. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.204.159 (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

An old fried of mine now at age 85, living at Bets, Auszria (Wien, Austria) and ethnic Deutch (German) who have friends also (as I do) in Budapest (Buda-Pesti), Unkari (Magyarorszák), have many times told when visiting here in Helsinki while having a coffee during summer in open air restarants; "If I close my eyes and just listen to how people are speaking I can be as well in Budapest or Helsinki. Of course the Hungarian language is little softer and uses zs but basicly the tempo of speech is exactly the same.

I personally can at ones hear who speaks Hungarian in one listening. I remember while in Spain just north of Barcelona during summer prior the Barcelona Olympic Games a group arrived to same hotel where I stayed. We talked Finnish at swimming pool when an old Gentleman with his Panama hat sat on next table and said at ones in Deutsh: You are Finnish and I am your cousin from Ungvari in Upper Hungary. I was born to Magyar parents in Dual Monarchy in 1916, become citizen of Chechoslovakia in 1918, then for one day I was in 1939 citizen of Karpatho Rutenia, went to sleep and wake up next morning to be on March 16, 1939 a citizen of Kiralyi Hungary again. In October 1944 I become citizen of Czechoslovakia again, but in 1945, when Carpathian Ruthenia was ceded by Czechoslovakia, I become a citizen of Soviet Ukraina in Soviet Union as I am today travelling with Hungarian Passport. But I will sooner or later, the sooner the better, be a citizen of independent Ukraina but it does not disturb me at all. States come and goes, but Ungvar is and remains by soul an old Hungarian (Alte Hungarische) town.

The lot talked Sumeri connection is also known in Finnish history by name Persian connection. This means a number of loan words of indo-european origin from Middle East to both languages. In fact, nobody can say is the connection to Sumeri language or to ancient Bactria but it existed. One typical Finnish saying is; Etelän miehet (Southern men) and many others like etana, sata, porsas, raha, Sumeria (place name) etc, still in every day use. Compare with Mordvin Sura, Sumerlja etc.

Please also note; the origin of Lactose intolerance (37 per cent) carried by Hungarians has been located in 2005 by Finland´s Academia Professor Leena Palotie to slopes in Southern Urali, today´s Boshkortostan. This genetic mutation appears to have originated during period 4.600 - 2.800 BC. The Finnish tribes Udmurts, and Mordvians carry also the same genetic mutation in even larger extend than the Hungarians.

By the way, what about the Finno Ugrian emigration from Oka area (Mordvin tribes) to Phennonia (Pannonia) and Erdely / Vanaati in c. 200 BC to 150 AD?.

I cannot understand why many indo-europeans want to make Unuguris an indo-european people, as well as some have recently been tried to make also Finnish origin dispused. A certain element of Hungarian soul carries this Finno Ugrian geene in thinking and acting, not the indo-european one. Peharps the best experts in this subject are those who have not Uniguri roots. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.204.159 (talk) 20:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Please no nationalromantic fantasy stories. Finno-Ugric is a group of languages, not a genetical classification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinist (talk • contribs) 22:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the added genetic section to the article because it looked like a cut and paste from one of the articles on Dienekes' anthropology blog. There's some good recent studies there on Hungarian and ancient Hungarian DNA. If anyone wants to improve this article, cruise over to http://dienekes.blogspot.com/search/label/Hungarians and check it out. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• words of early Slavic origin: akol, konyár, beznek, ócsár, pásztor, pecér, bivaly, széna, villa, kasza, gereblye, csép, asztag, polyva, gereben, parlag, len, zab, rozs, lencse, tönköly.
• words of onogur-turcik-alan-iranian origin: szánt, köles, tarló, búza, árpa, eke, boglya, szérű, szór, őröl, dara, dió, gyümölcs, komló, kender, tiló, csöpű, borsó, orsó, gyom, szőlő, seprő, szűr, bor, méz, méh, kenyér, irt, irtok, irtás, szekér, fű, szár, levél, alom, vessző, ökör, ... --fz22 (talk) 19:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it beliveable? Not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also read that the name Magyar is derived from the Slavic word medja (border)> medjar (a person [living] on the border) or medju (inbetween) both acceptable if you look at Hungary's geography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.105 (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.209.244.184 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

MagyarTürk, can you please stop playing with numbers, it doesn't even make sense what you say, we need to use official census data, the official census data in Romania says, per source that there are 1434377 Hungarians and 1370 Csángós/Ceangai, this is clear and official Romanian census, no possibility of confusion, this is how people declared themselves in Romania.

Your source which seems highly unreliable (and I will show you why) says that Hungarians = 1,431,807 (2002)[1] or 1,671,845[2] (with Csángós) That would mean that there are 240,047 Csángós, however on the same site it says that there at around 70,000 Csángós of which most of them declare themselves Hungarian. How can you account for an increase from 70,000 to 240,047 in the number of Csángós? -- this is a mark of high unreliability.

Regardless of that number, in Romania only 1,370 people declared themselves Csángós, the rest presumable declared themselves Hungarians or something else, counting them again it would be double-counting. Why do we have to discuss this? And please stop reverting well sourced data with your original research, and please mind WP:3RR. man with one red shoe 01:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The only vaguely plausible explanation for the large numbers of Csángós cited by MagyarTürk is in counting Moldavia's Roman Catholics as Csángós. Of course, that's a clear bit of original research: we have to go by the unambiguous census numbers, not speculations of what people "really" are. These numbers show the great majority of them to be Romanian-speaking ethnic Romanians. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, even more, assuming that were true, Csángós already declared themselves Hungarian or something else since in Romanian census there are counted only 1,370 Csángós, so including any other numbers beside being original research and not respecting the right of the people to declare whatever they want to be considered, is double-counting. It boggles the mind that this kind of nonsense is pushed and revert-warred on this page. man with one red shoe 04:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be probable double counting, the 1370 census number does not make a big difference in this case even though Csángós are a subset of Hungarians. What's often done in these cases is including both number while making clear that one is a 2002 census, other 2008 estimate for example. But for that you have to find a very good estimate from a very reliable source first. Hobartimus (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have first hand informations on rigged censuses!! :((

I've said this before about a year ago, and I'll say it again. The infobox numbers refer to the 2001 Hungary census and are thus misleading: not all Hungarian citizens are Magyars (arguably Hungarian Jews, for instance), and certainly not all Hungarians live in Hungary. For instance in Romania, there are large numbers (not sure about exact %) of Roman Catholics and Reformed, a small Unitarian community, and almost no unaffiliated: a distinctly different picture from Hungary. We'd do better by putting something like "Roman Catholic, Protestant (mainly Reformed, Lutheran, Unitarian), Unaffiliated". - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Why was the information about Madjars removed? That's not a fringe theory. It's new and I haven't seen any outright rejection of it. See also [10] --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Take the time to look at the actual source published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology then: [11] --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 17:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should improve the "Ethnic affiliations and genetic origins" section with this info, with more details of course. Dont forget to cite your sources.Baxter9 (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Probably. When I actually get time to do that. *laugh* (laughing at myself) --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There definitely should be a mention of the Madjars in Kazakhstan. It's certainly very plausible that they have the same origin, considering the Madjars share more genetically with Hungarian Magyars than they do other Kazakhs. I made a video about the study and included some photos of Madjar people from the Magyar/Madjar Kurultaj. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxVz1cZYnMU --Xiaogoudelaohu (talk) 06:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Look hair color and eye color anthropology maps. Type in google image searcher: "hair color map" or type: "eye color map". Compare the Hungarian Serbian and Romanian pigmentations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celebration1981 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So? man with one red shoe 05:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean I have some problem with the word "Magyars". If we refer to Hungarians in an English context, we shall call them (us) "Hungrians". As we call Englishmen "angolok" in a Hungarian context and not "English emberek" neither "az English-ek". It is irritating and I think grammatically incorrect. A text should be consequent on which language it's using. And if there is a corresponding word to translate to, I don't see why make up one (Magyars instead of Hungarians). Velag (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

At a first look a quick search in Google returns "62,700,000 English pages for Magyar" That means that the word is used plenty in English. man with one red shoe 19:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I did some research so I could support my view with more arguments. I found that in no other "People" page are the ethnic groups referred to with the word the given group refers to itself with. (So at Austrians they are not written about as "Österreichers", neither are the Slovaks discussed as "Slovácis".) I did not -of course- search for every and all ethnic group, but I think I covered Europe (and even tried Russians and the Japanese e.g.). So as this seems to be the practice over most of the English wiki - to use the English name for ethnic groups - I see no reason for using the very awkward, irritating and confusing -yet non-existent- word "magyars".

P.S. Before anyone might suspect I have any problem with Hungarian people, I tell you, I am one. And I think I'm not the only one who is disturbed by this inconsistency: I'm sure it makes (non Hungarian) people wonder (as examples show in this discussion page) "Just how on Earth is this supposed to be pronounced???" Thank you for consideringVelag (talk) 20:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. As if it meant anything, Google returns about over 31millions of results in English pages for "österreich"...; Also, it returned "only" 58millions for "magyar". And as it is very clear, many of them are just translations of originally Hungarian pages. I see your argument, man with one red shoe, but I think Google isn't the most reliable source in this case...Velag (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So, Osterreich is the official name of the country, we'll probably get a similar count for Deutschland or any such official names, however Magyar is just the name used in many articles including in what are considered according to Wikipedia's rules, "Reliable sources". man with one red shoe 02:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

All right then. Let it be :)Velag (talk) 09:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

An IP has deleted the following entire text section : Besides the various peoples mentioned above, the Magyars assimilated or were influenced by subsequent peoples arriving in the Carpathian Basin. Among these are the Cumanians, Pechenegs, Jazones, Germans and other Western European settlers in the Middle Ages. Romanians and Slovaks have lived together and blended with Magyars since early medieval times. Ottomans, who occupied the central part of present-day Hungary from c.1541 until c.1699, inevitably exerted an influence, as did the various nations (Germans, Slovaks, Serbs, Croats and others) that resettled depopulated territories after their departure. The advanced economic and political conditions of the Slavs, who had preceded the Magyars' arrival but continued to migrate thereafter, and those of the Germans exerted a significant influence; many Hungarian words relating to agriculture, politics, religion and handicrafts were borrowed from Slavic languages. Similar to other European countries, both Jewish and Roma (Gypsy) minorities have been living in Hungary since the Middle Ages. The deletion entailed no reaction. It is interesting to see again and again, what has become possible in the English wikipedia. Hiohiohio5 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does the article not speak about genetical biological reality instead of linguist and other obsolete tales? The conquering Hungarian tribes gave 5-10% of the entire population of early Hungary. According to genetics, the conqueror Hungarian tribes (and the later foreign western solfdiers) gave the ruling elite of medieval Hungary. More and more western historians think, that the conqueror tribes had foreign (non-Hungarian) turkic languages which was disappeared by time. Present-day Hungarian language is not based on the original language of conqueror tribes

Cite these reliable western historian sources and then we'll include them if they are worth that. I don't quite understand how you mean genetics shows the rank of the people (elite). What were the peasants of the great plain in medieval times? Where does the Hungarian language originate then if it was not the language of the according to you "dominant" group, and neither the conquerors?

Probably you can also deduce that Hungarians don't even exist and the whole nation is just made up. Qorilla (talk) 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The section talking about the "reduction" of percentage of Magyars in Kingdom of Hungary, I quote: In the 18th century their percentage declined further because of the influx of new settlers from Europe, especially Slovaks, Serbs, Croats, and Germans.

I ask the one who wrote this WHO are the new settlers from Europe? all these nationalities are older than Magyars and were allready living in Europe when Magyars were in Asia. The listed nations as new settlers were actually old settlers in the refered Kingdom of Hungary. The high Kingdom of Hungary (more percisely Lands of the crown of st. Stephen) included kingdom of Croatia, for example. Even if Croatians were migrating within the Lands of crown, they were not "influxing" as new settlers.

I have never seen bigger discussion pages than the ones about Hungarians and Kingdom of Hungary. My reasoning: it is the biggest responsibility of Hungaryan historiographers for not making the distinction between Kingdom of Hungary and The lands of the crown of st. Stephen, neglecting the existence of Kingdom of Croatia inside the "Lands..." and not being part of the Hungarian Kingdom proper, as majority in Hungary is not properly taught national history and finally, not knowing what is Magyar and Hungarian (or knowing but refusing to use different terms for any reason).

First, define what is Kingdom of Hungary, what is Hungarian, what is Magyar, what is the lands of the wholy crown of st. Stephen. After doing that; rewrite all the related articles and there will be no more discussion about that, I assure you all.Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but you -Hammer of Habsburg- absolutely do not know the history of Hungary,or history of Magyars.

Yes, Germans (kraut) were new settlers in the 18th in Hungary. They recovered south of Hungary, because that was underpopulated because of Turkish wars. What is the problem with this? They came from abroad like Serbs, Jews, or partly Romanians and Rusyns. Croatian and Slovakian were inside in Kingdom of Hungary, but Croatia was always separated land, and both were new settlers in the ethnic area of Hungarian in the 18 th.

All nationalities older than Magyars? What since? Did not Magyars exist when they lived at the Ural mountains for example? You are a wee bit racist.

Hungarian historians, historiographers know precisely what is the difference -above mentioned- among parts of the Kingdom Hungary.

And it would be good if you knew Hungarian and Magyar are same purport. English languages does not know "Magyar". Maybe you confuse Hungarian and consciousness of "Hungarus".Fakirbakir (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Captions for images go before or after the image, not both. The eight headshots in this image should be stored and marked up separately, to preserve meaning and context; not glued together and surrounded with words like some kind of mandatory school assignment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.76.253 (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How can Croatia, located very much western of the Hungary's south be listed as south-east Europe and at the same time Hungary, far east of Croatia be central Europe? Or am I that bad in geography?Hammer of Habsburg (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The external link/reference - arpad.org - does not conform with what is generally accepted by mainstream historians about the origins of the Magyars - seems to be some lunatic-fringe based nationalistic site. Magyars began in Mesopotamia, eh? And Sumerians are closely related to them? Sure - how could we have missed this "fact" over the centuries? I propose this be removed - any objections? HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

I have added new informations about Hungarian genetic researches. It would be great if somebody contributed more informations about this theme. Those researches can give us very new point of views. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC) These facts are from Hungarian Academy of Sciences, reliable sources. I hope this research, treatise will be published in English as well, (or it is existing, just I do not know)Fakirbakir (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a sentence refering to a Science article from 2000 but not proper reference is given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.227.15.253 (talk) 08:51, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Should there be a note on how to pronounce this? When I was in Hungary, I learned it was pronounced with a soft g (ie,"Mah-jyar". Yet it seems to be common for people to mispronounce it with a hard G as "Mag-Yar" 216.116.87.110 (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• fr:mahgar ch:madiar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.164.48 (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hungarians speak Finno-Ugric language, Hungarians are 'partly-mostly' a Finno-Ugric population however we can not disregard the Turkic connections. Hungarian and Non-Hungarian academic works are existed about that. Please stop deleting months of work.Fakirbakir (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• We must not forget the three Turkic Kabar tribes
• part of the Academics assume a smaller Turkic or Iranic leader population in the common Finno-Ugric people.
• Researchers presume the Hungarians were a mixed (and mixed-race) population before the Hungarian conquest (Finno-Ugric, Iranic, Turkic etc.
• We must not forget the possibility of language exchange in the past (from the age of Andronovo culture)
• Finno-Ugric, Turkic and Iranic genetic and race characters are very similar to ancient Hungarians.
• theme of Avar and Hungarian relationships (double Hungarian conquest)

---

in addition, who added a sentence certain like this without a refferance;

"Although the name of the modern-day Hungarian people is based on Turkic roots, the Hungarians themselves are actually not related to the Turkic peoples," --78.174.115.93 (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If not how can you deny the place of the Magyars in our racial ancestry? 71.212.214.163 (talk) 06:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Look for reliable sources and construct a NPOV section, and then collaborate with other editors to build a consensus view on the matter. Or are your plans just to periodically show up to inject criticisms on talk pages of contentious subjects without actually doing anything useful to them, as your contribs seem to suggest? Heiro 07:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, so provide a reliable source comparing the DNA of modern Hungarians to ancient Hungarians instead of comparing them to modern day Mongolians because you assume ancient Hungarians are Mongolian. 71.212.214.163 (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If you read the article nobody states this. Actually, the page demonstrates that the ancient Hungarians had mostly Europid characters (Turanid, East-baltic). (Pal Liptak)Fakirbakir (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Slavic people and present-day Romanians contains average higher ratio of east-Asian (aka. Mongoloid) haplogroup markers than presnt-day Hungarians. --84.0.57.240 (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we have to deny (decades) works of Hungarian academic anthropologists? Because, according to User:Valosag, Turanid race is obsolete term, It does not exist, and the researchers are racist if somebody of them dare to use it? It is ridiculous. Pal Liptak's works are good quality and he had vast knowledge about migration period, Hungarians. Science and Turanism are different things. Antrophology uses this term without any racist reasoning. Genetic researches are different things again and thosse are just related with Anthropology (not the same discipline).Fakirbakir (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC) Moreover Liptak"s works are important and dominant in connection with early Hungarians, Avars (in the Carpathian Basin).Fakirbakir (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

-Non-fact, written by non-entity.

yeah, that's funny - can an admin delete this? I would but it's frowned upon. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

|I did some editing to meet Wikipedia's quality NPOV standards ;)| CormanoSanchez (talk) 07:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

	An image used in this article, File:Genetic relations of European nations.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The caption for the map of the Magyar raids into western Europe states "Most European nations were praying for mercy..." - this is un-encyclopedic and unsourced and needs to be adjusted.

The term "Vikings" should be changed to Varangians, to be more precise.

Many of the sections have repeated statements and jump around from one topic only to return to it again a paragraph later - probably the result of various editors wishing to stress their own competing references - disjointed, poor grammar. The text should be rewritten so that the various views are laid out in a logical manner, with the mainstream positions being stressed over the minor opinions.

What purpose does the "Eastern Hemisphere 1100 A.D." map have - what value does Africa, Asia and Australia have for this article? HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

Here are a few candidates:

• Ibolya Csák, gold medalist athlete
• Ilona Elek, one of the greatest female fencers in history
• Magda Szabó, novelist
• Mária Telkes, scientist
• Zsa Zsa Gabor, actress

マーテー (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and I agree with you. Moreover, the whole box-picture would need a major update. I will plan to do it in the near future. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 05:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Magyars are the true ethnic name for ethnic people of Hungary. Hungarians is just the name that foreigners use. Why not use "Magyars" for this article instead of "Hungarian people"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.80.206 (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Because "Hungarians" is the term more often used in English. Hobartimus (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Support - term "Hungarian people" in English can means also a inhabitants of the "Hungarian kingdom" of variouse ethnic origin. "Magyars" is better form for ethnicity. Its same case like Netherlands and Dutchs (Its more hits to Netherlands people as Dutch people in google). Until the late 19th century was the term "Hungarians" used for a Slovaks, Magyars, Ruthenians, Germans and all inhabitants of the Hungarian kingdom. With the rise of Hungarian nationalism started Magyars use this name exclusively for Magyars. Citation: "Hungarian and Magyar were synonymous until the end of of the eighteen century because nobody thought that the mother-tongue should be made the main criterion of nationhood. With the new emphasis placed on language, Magyar developed a more restricted meanig for those who spoke a particular language, while Hungarian maintained the broader meaning of those who lived in the Hungarian kingdom." So from the end of 18th century its different between Hungarians and Magyars. Term "Hungarian" and usage of this term for present day "Magyars" is nationalistic anachronism from 18-19th century. Some Magyar nationalists want to use these words as synonyms because its nationalistic instrument to create the ethnic and political history of Hungarian kingdom and Hungarians connected exclusively with ethnic Magyars. Because of this nationalism the Hungarian kingdom was divided into successor states: (mostly) Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary (btw new created Hungary was called "Magyaria" in official English documents [12]), Yugoslavia. Aim of these attempts are to link continuity of Hungarian kingdom exclusively with Hungary and Magyars. Its process of useing national mythology, nationalistic point of view of their history, deleteing of the different opinions and so on. You will hardly find a so many "historians" in one country like in Hungary. Their besetting insistency will be hard to change. If we deals with exact terms: "Hungarian people" about 83 000 hits [13] about "Magyars" 334 000 hits [14] --Samofi (talk) 10:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is a silly debate. The term of Hungarian is the widely accepted English word for the Hungarian word Magyar.

• "Hungarians":2 930 000 hits[15]
• "Magyars": 531 000 hits [16]Fakirbakir (talk) 11:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Should we change the English word German to Deutsch because this is how they call themselves? .....Fakirbakir (talk) 11:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, its not silly debate. These arguments are a little bit retarded. Term "Magyar" is used in the English literatre. (247 000 hits in English language books: [17] - all in connection with ethnicity. But term "Hungarians"? Almost all sources are connected with history before 1918 - so with citizens of Hungarian kingdom, not with present-day Hungary. Its not same country, Hungarian kingdom was multiethnic - more than 1000 sources prove that: [18]) Term "Deutsch" is not used in the English literature as equivalent for Germans. What is this for a argument? Term "Hungarians" before the end of Hungarian Kingdom describe all inhabitants of this kingdom - its multiethnic term. Term "Magyars" has a less hits than "Hungarians" but hits about "Hungarians" talk about Slovaks, Ruthenians, Croats, Romanians, Serbs, Magyars and Germans durring the time of the Hungarian kingdom (natio hungarica). Term "Magyar" is a better expression for a dominant nation of present-day Hungary. --Samofi (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Magyar is not a naturalized English word, nobody uses it. Hungarian is the traditional English word for Hungarians/Magyars from the Middle Ages. Nobody wants to call himself Hungarian except Hungarians. It it a silly dispute.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Slovaks should not use the term "Slovak" before 1920 because they were Hungarians?Fakirbakir (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, the Hungarians (from the word Onogour, means ten tribes "ten arrows" from Turkic) were the leader population during the centuries (especially in the Middle Ages) and the minorities belonged to the Hungarian Kingdom. Later the minorities split from the Hungarians (1920). While the minorities belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary they were parts of the population of the Hungarian Kingdom.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Another thing Hungary was a successor state for Kingdom of Hungary. It is fact.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

OMG, its like in the nursery..

1)"Magyar" is naturalized word for a ethnicity of dominant nation in Hungary. Its same case like in Nedherlands: "Dutch" vs. "Netherlander" or "Hollander" (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Netherlander). Or in the connection of "Bohemia" and "Bohemians" vs. "Czechs". "Bohemians" were inhabitants of the "Bohemia"(Czechy) and "Czechs" were "ethnic Czechs". Last European nation which use historical anachronism like a present name are Magyars. Even in France is make a difference "France" vs. "Frankish Empire" - "Franks" - "French people". But you dream about 1000 years old polity of Hungarians which were in the fact multiethnic in the all existence of the kingdom.

2)Yes, term "Hungarian" or "natio Hungarica" was also name for a ethnic Slovaks in the time of the Kingdom of Hungary and not only Slovaks, but also Magyars, Germans and Croats - its political name connected with Hungarian kingdom and no ethnic name

3)Its planty of theories about the origin of the name of the Hungarians (this is only one of them). Next theory is about derivation from the Huns, but present day Magyars has nothing to do with the Huns. Your source says that mimorities (btw Magyars were minority all the time in the Regnum Marianum (Hungaria) and in the Royal Hungary it were Slovaks the most numerouse ethnicity - but all inhabitants of Royal Hungary were Hungarians, because of their citizenship). But I try to analyze your citation. In the fact it support all what I have written above. I will parafraze your citation: Hungarians were dominant nation (magyars) and minorities (slovaks, ruthenians, croats, germans, romanians) in the kingdom. - it support my opinion. So its incorrect make a connection of Hungarians wich were used for a 1000 years for a Magyars, Slovaks, Romanians, Croats etc. exclusivelly for present-day "Magyars". --Samofi (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a more successor states, its 1000 sources about it. Only Magyars wants to make Hungary only successor state. [19] read official documents. Successor states anexed a territory of the former Hungarian kingdom. In 1918 it was a Aster revolution in Hungarian kingdom and it was created a "Magyar Republic". For example Treaty of Trianon, there is written which states are successors (CS, HU, YU, RO). Dont you agree with treaty of trianon? --Samofi (talk) 13:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You forget only one fact. The Hungarians were in majority (around 75-80%) in the medieval kingdom. We can talk about real "multi-ethnic" kingdom after the Turkish Wars in essence (war losses, resettlements by Habsburgs, refugees). The latin term Natio Hungarica was for the Hungarian nobility, it does not really have to deal with peoples in the late Middle Ages.. In the Middle Ages the minorities did not want to establish own entities in the kingdom because of their low numbers. They adapted to the majority and thought that they are part of the Hungarian people. This "adaptation" did not work after the Turkish Wars because of the changed ethnic ratios. The changed demographic positions led to Treaty of Trianon. The leading people were the "Hungarians" and they called themselves "Magyars". "Hungarian" means "Magyar". The western states fabricated their name (Ungarisch, Hongrie, Hongar, Ungherese, Onggarese, Wegier etc. ) because of the events of the 9-10th centuries. We maybe able to use this term for Slovaks, Rusyns etc because of the Hungarian state, but nothing else.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a sources about this? It seems like a your personal point of view. Majority of sources about history of the kingdom make a difference between Hungarians and Magyars. Hungarian is term for a citizens and Magyar is term for a ethnicity.--Samofi (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this suggestion, and the soapboxing of the previously indefinitely blocked user:Samofi. Wikipedia is not a personal soapbox, not even the talk pages, moreover this is not the talkpage of the "Treaty of Trianon", so soapboxing about that will not achieve anything on this talkpage. This is the talk page for "Hungarian people" take other topics to their relevant talk pages. Hobartimus (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

It is also not a discussion forum or Q&A where posts like this belong. [20]. Hobartimus (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You write all the time same, that I was blocked. Its tired and pathetic.. It seems like a wikihounding. I changed I discuss things at talk pages before I edit it. Its about usage of therm "Hungarian people" vs "Magyars". Its not a soapbox (like you said) so user:samofi who was a blocked because he was edit warring doesnt belong to discussion at talk page of Hungarian people. You can use your talkpage. Its discussion about move of the page. So stop with personal attacks to user:samofi. If you have a problem use ANI. If you have no arguments in this topic, your oppose is irrelevant. Or do you oppose because user:samofi was formerly blocked? --Samofi (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that some of the posts were disruptive soapboxing. An indefinite block is simply evidence that "disruption" was confirmed by admins in the past as well. Further my opinion is that you instead of discussing the topic of the article, you talked about your own personal opinions on other topics, such as successor states. It is already clear that "Hungarians" is much more used term and "Magyars" fell out of wide use in the English language (a language that you admit, you don't understand well). So it would seem that you don't want to debate this, but rather your opinions about other things at great length. But why isn't the successor states, or the Treaty of Trianon article's talk page suitable if you want to discuss about that? Hobartimus (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Term Hungarian is used more because it covers also a citizens of Hungarian kingdom. Term "Magyar" is the term for ethnicity. See page Hungarian nationalism. --Samofi (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Btw User:Fakirbakir started with successor states [21], its good manner to answer to my friend. But discussion about user:samofi as user:hobartimus started([22] - "I oppose this suggestion, and the soapboxing previously indefinitely blocked user:Samofi") doesnt belongs here and its topic for ANI.

NOTE: User:Hobartimus opposes because of user:samofi was formerly blocked, he has no relevant arguments about this topic. It can be considered as personal attack instead of arguments: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." "What is considered to be a personal attack?" "Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor". Former block of user:samofi is external case in the relation with this discussion and linking this former block with discussion about Hungarian people can be considered as personal attack. --Samofi (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

You should not state untrue things. Read your first comment please: "Because of this nationalism the Hungarian kingdom was divided into successor states: (mostly) Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary (btw new created Hungary was called "Magyaria" in official English documents [1]), Yugoslavia. "Fakirbakir (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you cite all context next time, pls? My edit has a 13 lines and it was a one from arguments. You told that only Hungary was successor state - it was your argument and all your edit in the line: "Another thing Hungary was a successor state for Kingdom of Hungary. It is fact. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)". If it was problem for you, you could warned me about this (about soapboxing) and not take a 3% from my edit and started discussion about it. --Samofi (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I oppose for many reasons only some of which I outlined above, like a lot more use in English for the term "Hungarians". Since this text is written for English speakers it helps if we use terms they are already familiar with and widely use. Hobartimus (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand you. But English readers can be also confused that term "Hungarians" in the time of kingdom means not only "Magyars" but also Slovaks, Ruthenians, Croats, Jews and Germans.. Maybe good idea would be to create a disambiguation page for Hungarians in 1001-1918 and after 1918. I think it can make a "better air" here between the Magyar editors and Romanian, Croatian, Serbian and Slovak editors. Because its often cited in historical or English language sources - and its vague if its speaking about "Hungarian people" like "ethnic Magyars" or "Hungarian people" like "inhabitants of the former Kingdom which can be a ethnic slovaks, magyars, serbians, romanians or croats".--Samofi (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

About successor states, please comment here:[23]Fakirbakir (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for a notice I appreciate it. --Samofi (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• I also oppose the change, based on the arguments presented by users Hobartimus and Fakirbakir. Namely, the widely accepted English translation of the Hungarian word "magyar" is "Hungarian". Take a look at the article about Béla Bugár. It states that he is a Slovak politician, because he is a citizen of Slovakia and he is active in Slovakia. I have no problem with that (as long as it is also stated that he is of Hungarian ethnicity), but it seems that there is no distinction between citizens of Slovakia and Slovaks. Then, does user Samofi also suggest that in case a person is ethnic Slovak, we should call him/her Slovenských instead of Slovak, to make this distinction? Koertefa (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

NOTE Its manipulation.

• Magyars is English translation of Magyarok. [24] - "Magyar: A member of the principal ethnic group of Hungary."
• Hungarians - its just a political concept and citizenship. [25] - "Hungarian: a native, inhabitant, or citizen of Hungary" But its no relation to Hungarian people(Magyars), its term with relation to Hungary and Hungarian kingdom.
• Its same in the case of Netherlands, Netherlander is the citizen. So Netherlander is Dutch, Saxon, Frisian.. And dominant ethnic group are Dutch people. Hungarian is citizen of Hungary. So Hungarians are dominant ethnic groups of Magyars + autochtonous minorities in Hungary - Slovaks, Croats, Slovenes, Germans, Jews, Romanians, Serbs and Gypsies whose are citizens of Hungary. Magyars are Magyars and Hungarians are Hungarians. Its not synonymous.
• In the case of Bela Bugar its linked "Slovak politician" with "Politics of Slovakia". Its no connection to Slovak people. --Samofi (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Hungarian is more often used in English. There are 196 countries in the world and even more ethnicities... Slovaks are dominant ethnic groups of Slovaks + autochtonous minorities in Slovakia- Hungarians, Croats, Slovenes, Germans, Jews, Romanians, Serbs and Gypsies whose are citizens of Slovakia.--B@xter⁹ 20:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course its use more often because it has 2 meanings. Before 1918 it was a citizenship - its correct. And after 1918 its sometimes used as citizenship and ethnic term. But term "Magyars" is use much more often used in the connection with dominant ethnic group in Hungary ([26] - Magyar - a member of the ethnic group, of the Finno-Ugric stock, that forms the predominant element of the population of Hungary). We need to disambiguation terms "Hungarian people" and "Hungarians" (for example like the term "American" is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American). Present article about "Hungarian people" is written about "ethnic Magyars" not about citizens of Hungary (its also Slovaks, Magyars, Jews, Germans). Its nationalism to connect political term which was used 1000 years with connection to people with variouse ethnic origin exclusively to Magyars as synonym. Its not synonym, you can read each English terminological dictionary. Ideas above are Ethnic nationalism - its danger for Wikipedia. --Samofi (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not ethnic nationalism. The Hungarian word is the traditional English (and German, French, Polish etc) word for the Magyars from the Early Middle Ages (Ungari, Ungri, Hungri, Hungari, Ungarus, Hungarius, Onger, Wanger) Initially it was meant for only the Magyar ethnic group.[27]Fakirbakir (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

As I corrected in the section of etymology, It is quite possible the Hungarians became the dominant ethnic group in the Onogur alliance and this is the point when the name of Hungarians means only Magyars.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

ita et genealogiam regum hungarie et nobilium suorum qualiter septem principales persone que hetumoger uocantur de terra scithica descenderunt, uel qualis sit terra scithica et qualiter sit generatus dux almus, aut quare uocatur almus primus dux hungarie a quo reges hungarorum originem duxerunt, uel quot regna et reges sibi subiuga-uerunt, aut quare populus de terra scithica egressus per ydioma alienigenarum hungarij et in sua lingua propria mogerij uocantur tibi scriberem.

so to write for you of the genealogy of the kings of Hungary and their noblemen: how the seven leading persons, who are called Hetumoger, Álmos was born and why Álmos, from whom the kings of Hungary trace their origin, is called the first duke of Hungary, and how many realms and rulers they conquered and why the people coming forth from the Scythina land are called Hungarians in the speech of foreigners, but Magyars in their own. (Anonymus: Gesta Hungarorum) Martinus Poeta Juvenis (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The article says that around 1000 "the Hungarian nation numbered between 25,000 and 1,000,000 people." Is it not possible to offer a narrower range of estimates? I realize numbers are sketchy for the early Middle Ages, but still this is a huge discrepancy. It's like estimating a crowd at "between 25 and 1,000."

Dealing with the 18th century, the article says, "Droves of Romanians entered Transylvania during the same period." Droves seems vaguely pejorative and POV.

Sca (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The reference to "nation" in the introduction must have been related to the attempt to recognize that the word "Hungarian" did not refer specifically to the Magyar ethnic group. It could mean a German who was a citizen of Hungary (The Kingdom of Hungary is historically multi-ethnic). There has been past discussion on this which can probably be found in the Talk archives. Some have advocated to name this article "Magyar" in order to remain specific and sensitive to this while others have advocated for "Hungarian". Obviously, the article's subject is the ethnic group, not the nation. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 22:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Hungarian people/Archive 1 has several discussions related to this. The past consensus was that the article is not about the nation, but the Magyar ethnic group (Hungarian in English) and the top of the article was tagged to direct people to the article on demographics in Hungary[28]. Please leave mention of "nation" out of the article per past consensus. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not find that "past consensus", please, bring forward the main arguments which support that Hungarians are not a nation. Take a look at, for example, the nation article of Wikipedia: it starts with: "A nation may refer to a community of people who share a common language, culture, ethnicity, descent, and/or history". It perfectly fits to Hungarians. The article about the Romanians also state that: "The Romanian people are a nation in the meaning of ethnos (Romanian: etnie), defined by the sense of sharing a common Romanian culture, descent, and having Romanian as mother tongue, not by citizenship or by being subjects to any particular country.". Or look at the article of the Encyclopedia Britannica [29]: "A nation is a unified territorial state with a political system that governs the whole society. A nation may be very large with several political subdivisions—such as the United States, China, Canada, or Australia—or it may be a small unit like the city-state of Singapore. A nation need not consist of a single, continuous geographical unit.". Or the site dictionary.com defines "nation" as "A large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own". Hungarians are obviously a nation accord each of these approaches. Q.E.D. Koertefa (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The point is absolutely not to say that Hungarians (Magyars) are not a nation and I apologize if that is how it seems, but to narrow the historic wider meaning which originates from the term natio hungarica. As I wrote above, I concluded that the reference to "nation" must have been related to this wider meaning. With closer examination of the version of the article I linked to, it can be seen that there's some sentences about this wider meaning that have since been moved from the introduction to the section on History[30]. Now I took some time to find the edit where "nation" was added into the introduction (not easy!) [31]. There's no edit comment so it is difficult to understand what the editor's thinking was behind making those changes. It is also unhelpful that the edit was made from an IP address. That editor may not have been referring to the wider meaning of the word Hungarian. We cannot know. For background, please see the discussions at Talk:Hungarian_people/Archive_1#An_idea, Talk:Hungarian_people/Archive_1#Requested_move, and Talk:Hungarian_people/Archive_1#Discussion_2. You can see concern in those discussions about the word Hungarian referring historically to the nation (as in citizens of Hungary) where today the word in English typically refers to the ethnic group. You can see the recognition that the article is about the ethnic group and not citizens of Hungary or natio hungarica. And you can find the attempt to clarify the ambiguity by adding the link to Demographics of Hungary at the top. This is not a unique problem on Wikipedia because you can find similar discussions, like Kazakh or Kazakhstani. It just happens that the word "Hungarian" can carry both meanings and historically has referred to natio hungarica. To me, adding in "nation" reintroduces the ambiguity that editors in the past have tried to clarify. Perhaps you have some idea on how to maintain clarity when using the word "nation". --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed reply and for linking past discussions about the topic. I understand that it needs to be clarified which people the article is about. The concept of "nation" is vague, there are several possible definitions. However, according to each of these definitions Hungarians are a nation. Consequently, I think the word "nation" should not be left out. On the other hand, I also see that some editors fear that it may lead to misunderstandings. A solution could be to include a particular definition of nation that we have in mind as, for example, it is done in the article about the Romanians. I agree that this article is not about everybody who lives/lived in Hungary, it would be too wide, but I also think that restricting the meaning to ethnic Hungarians would be a mistake. For example, how can we decide who is ethnic Hungarian? Is having a Hungarian grandfather enough to classify somebody as ethnic Hungarian? In my opinion, this article should focus on the Hungarian nation, namely, on people who share the Hungarian culture, know the Hungarian language (at some level), share the Hungarian history, and/or have some Hungarian descent. For example, for me Sándor Petőfi perfectly fits into this article, even though his father had Serbian ancestry and his mother was Slovak. He, however, felt himself Hungarian, spoke Hungarian, wrote his poems in Hungarian, identified himself with the Hungarian culture and history, and (with high probability) even died for the cause of Hungarians. So in that sense his ancestry does not really matter, but of course, I am not against mentioning Petőfi in the articles about Serbians or Slovaks, based on his roots. Therefore, I think that the article should not only be about ethnic Hungarians, but also about the Hungarian nation, but we should clearly define what do we mean by "nation". Concepts like "natio hungarica" should be discussed in the History (or the Etymology) section of the article. What do you think? Koertefa (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding. Please be careful with the word "Hungarian". The Hungarian nation derives from the Árpáds because they were those who established the Hungarian state. We have to distinguish between Hungarian ethnic group and the Hungarian nobility (the Hungarus nation), but we also have to distinguish between Hungarian ethnic group (Magyars) in the past and the minorities of the kingdom. Hungarian ethnic group (Hungarian people) does not have wider meaning, we can not call the Slovaks Hungarians in the past, however Hungarian political nation included Slovak, Rusyn members as well. The most important thing, the the Hungarian nobility (political nation) was not equal with Hungarian people (Hungarian ethnic group) but the Hungarian nation (political nation) became synonyme with Hungarian people (Hungarian ethnic group) from the age of Enlightenment. We also have to distinguish between medieval Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Hungary in the Modern period. The Hungarians (possibly from the word Onogour, "ten arrows" from Turkic) were the leader population in the Middle Ages, they were in majority (around 75-80% or more) in the medieval kingdom. There is a theory what states that: "The Hungarians must have belonged to the Onogur tribal alliance (before 895) and it is quite possible they became its ethnic majority". Nobody wanted to call himself "Hungarian" except the Magyars in this time (9-15th centuries). The "multi-ethnic" kingdom is a latter process, it developed after the Turkish Wars in essence (war losses, resettlements by Habsburgs, refugees etc..). The latin term Natio Hungarica (from the 15th century) was for the Hungarian nobility and clerics, it does not really have to deal with peoples, especially in the late Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages the minorities did not want to establish own entities in the kingdom because of their low numbers (possibly). They possibly adapted to the majority and thought that they are part of the Hungarian (Magyar) people. BUT this does not mean that Hungarian word is a wider expression or it does not mean that Slovak or German peoples belonged to the Hungarian people. If we followed this idea we would have to change the meaning of English people, or the meaning of Dutch people etc... This "adaptation process" did not work after the Turkish Wars because of the changed ethnic ratios. The changed demographic positions led to Treaty of Trianon. The leading people were the "Hungarians" and they called themselves "Magyars". The western states fabricated their name (Ungarisch, Hongrie, Hongar, Ungherese, Onggarese, Wegier etc. ) because of the events of the 9-10th centuries. Slovak or Rusyn nobles were part of the Hungarian (Hungarus) nobility but the Slovak or Serb or Romanian peoples never thought to be part of the Hungarian people (Slovak people is especially difficult case because they did not have mother country and they shared the territory with the Hungarians, however they never stated they are ethnic Hungarians. Every nation has a development process, every nation mixed with other peoples, Slovaks mixed with Hungarians, Hungarians mixed with Slovaks for instance...... Slovaks were Hungarian citizens but they were never part of the Hungarian people or Hungarians live in Slovakia nowadays they are Slovak citizens but they were never part of the Slovak people) Fakirbakir (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, you bring up all good points that repeat what others have already written. Please take the time to read the past discussion. Some said there is no ambiguity in English, that "Hungarian" means specifically ethnic Hungarians and a Slovak citizen of Hungary would not say they are Hungarian. But some others have also expressed confusion, saying that naming the article "Hungarians" would reference citizens of Hungary and not ethnic Hungarians. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Koertefa, I agree we should move the information about "natio hungarica" and related information to the Name section. It seems buried in the History section since it was moved from the introduction. I think we should expand on your other idea. The current article rather strictly deals with the Magyar as an ethnic group and seems to purposely avoid historic people like Sándor Petőfi. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We can mention the "natio hungarica" concept in the Name section, but for me it is also good in the History section, since that historical idea does not have any significance any more. I do not think that the word "Hungarian" is often used for people who simply lived in the Kingdom of Hungary, even though they did not consider themselves Hungarians. For example, I doubt that Ján Kollár was ever called Hungarian, even though he was born and lived most of his life in the Kingdom of Hungary. In that question I agree with Fakirbakir, since I don't have an example in mind where a non-Hungarian was called Hungarian just because s/he lived in Hungary, but perhaps somebody else does? Regarding the "nation": as the first definition, I would use a similar one that is in the article about the Romanians. For example, we could write: "Hungarian people are a nation in the sense of sharing a common Hungarian language, culture, history and/or descent, and not by citizenship.". Is is very similar to what is written in the nation article of Wikipedia. BTW: I have just checked the ethnic group article, and it states that: "An ethnic group (or ethnicity) is a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and/or an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy". This definition is quite surprising, since it is almost the same as the definition of a nation. However, even if the "ethnic group" article currently defines the concept very similarly to nation, I still think that the word "nation" should also be explicitly stated, since other definitions of "ethnic group" indicate strong genetic/anthropological connections. Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, we should include and express the "nation" concept explicitly. Koertefa (talk) 07:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's changing semantics. "Ethnic group" has taken over a more traditional meaning of the word "nation" and "nation" has come to have more of a citizenship connotation. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a good observation. There is a shift in the meaning of "ethnic group", at least there are different interpretations of it and according to one of the newer ones it means something similar to the original meaning of "nation". Nevertheless, I think that this interpretation is not yet universally accepted. For example, even though I highly respect Australian Aborigines, I would not call them a "nation", but they are certainly an "ethnic group" (or several ethnic groups) with unique language(s), culture and history. For me, they are (important) part of the Australian nation. We can also take a look at the definition of "ethnic group" in the Ecyclopedia Britannica [32]. It is not exactly the same as the classical concept of "nation". Since there are several parallel approaches to these concepts, I think that we should include both. Koertefa (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

An addition: the articles about the English people, Scottish people, French people, Norwegian people, Portuguese people, Greek people and Austrian people, etc., all mention that they are nations, as well. Koertefa (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For reference: Hungarians, also known as Magyars (Hungarian: magyarok), are a Fenno-Ugric ethnic group native to and primarily associated with Hungary.

Why I keep removing this from the introduction:

1. The term "Finno-Ugric" is a construct from linguistics meant to convey language relatedness.
2. An ethnic group is a term from the study of ethnography. Common language, etc., in an ethnic group is important to group formation. Ethnography may have it's own classifications that are separate from the linguistic terms.
3. A language grouping term from linguistics can never adequately represent ethnographic schemes.

I'm fully aware that there is use of the term "Finno-Ugric peoples" by various organizations who seek to promote the creation and sharing of more cultural bonds based on a linguistic language family and I take no issue with that, but it really has no place in an encyclopedic introduction (it is already linked to in the History section). "Finno-Ugric peoples" is a populist term and not scientific. Using such unscientific terms in the introduction would make it equally valid for someone else to come along and want "Ural-Altaic ethnic group", "Turanic ethnic group", "Hunno-Magyar ethnic group", "Germano-Slavic ethnic group", etc., etc.

Moreover, I remove "native to" because it contradicts the article, which gives a history of Hungarians coming from Siberia.

Alternative: Hungarians, also known as Magyars (Hungarian: magyarok), are an ethnic group primarily associated with Hungary and speak a Finno-Ugric languages. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your points, but I do not agree with leaving out the "native to" part. It is likely that the ancestors of Hungarians arrived from Central Asia (and not from Siberia, but it is another question), but more than 1000 years of history binds them to the Carpathian Basin. So they are native to this region. "Native to" does not necessarily mean that they always lived in this place as, e.g., the Greeks also immigrated to the area of modern-Greece, still their article states that they are native to Greece and Cyprus, etc. The ancestors of English people also only moved to the island, still their article states that they are native to England. By also taking the above discussion into account, I propose the following:

Hungarians, also known as Magyars (Hungarian: magyarok), are a nation and an ethnic group native to the Carpathian Basin and primarily associated with Hungary. Hungarians are a nation in the sense of sharing a common Hungarian language, cultural heritage, history and descent, and not by citizenship. Hungarian is a Finno-Ugric language and it is the largest non-Indo-European language in Europe.

Bye, Koertefa (talk) 07:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don`t think that there is any change needed here. Of course Hungarian are native to the are of Carpatian Basin, they live here for more than 1000 years (did`t arrived here yesterday). The native word should not be removed. Also for the Fino-ugric formulation. I believe that this formulation (as it was) is short, informative and right to the point. Adrian (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. The problem with calling Hungarians a "Fenno-Ugric ethnic group" is, as Stacey pointed out, that linguistics and ethnography are not the same, the language of a group does not define its ethnographic schemes. Koertefa (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

hmm........ this user still dont understand the diffrence between Finno-Ugric peoples and "Finno-Ugric languages" this is exactly as the uzbeks are shown as turkic on wikipedia , and why is that you might wonder ? they are a turkic ethnic group because "turkic people" exists just as Finno-Ugric peoples which are both based on their ethnolinguistic origin 220.136.21.160 (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous user, the Uzbek article does not make the claim of the existence of a Turkic ethnic group, but does link to the Turkic peoples article, which explains it as an ethno-linguistic term. Moreover, the Turkic peoples share cultural traits much more in common with each other than Finno-Ugric peoples do. Hungarians really exist quite far outside of the same cultural sphere that is shared between Udmurts and Komi. You're talking about trying to culturally tie peoples together that split over 6000 years ago! Hungarians share many more cultural ties with Turkic and Central European peoples. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Adrian, by your reasoning, the Roma are native to Hungary. Let us add "native to" to the introduction of the Roma in Hungary article. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sborsody I see you point, but removing the word native would be wrong because Hungarian built their long history on this area here - I guess that counts for something. I am not that much familiar with this subject, but Hungarians formed as an ethnic group here, I don`t believe Roma did too. Adrian (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying that the Gypsies are native to Europe, even though their origins can be traced back to the Indian Subcontinent (they also did not arrive yesterday). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 00:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Stacey Doljack Borsody, the "native" part is in complete contradiction with the rest of the article, especially used in connection with Finno-Ugric peoples who are clearly not native to Europe. It is clear that 1000 years later, the modern Hungarians are well established in Europe, but it is still hard to make the case for being native. Same issues apply to Gypsies in Europe, Turks in Europe (even in Anatolia!) and the Europeans in Americas. They are all well established but not native (although, usually, they will all like to think of themselves that they are - until someone reminds them they are not). Of course, it can all be subjective and loaded with politics. You can always ask the question: how long can a group live somewhere before it becomes native? On top of it populations merge (as genetics shows for Hungarians) and languages mix. See also Native. It is not easy to phrase this in a way to not offend a party or another. I did my best to write it as accurately and neutral as possible. But I am happy to see any further refinement.--Codrin.B (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is a clearly biased statement: "Finno-Ugric peoples who are clearly not native to Europe. " If you are familiar with the new genetic researches or archeology you should know that Finn-Ugric peoples are NATIVE in Europe (Eastern Europe). Moreover, It is too early to draw conclusions about genetic researches or "Hungarian genetic researches" because there are lots of contradiction, opposite opinions and.... Have you heard about the new R1a1a1-Z280 results (the "Slavic" marker)? New results presume its Finn-ugric origin.....Fakirbakir (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

If you don't mind, please present that "research" with sources. If you say "native" to Eastern Europe, probably you mean somewhere "close to Europe" in the Urals, but surely you don't mean Carpathian Basin. Cause if you do, this is completely WP:FRINGE. I would suggest to find a consensus before reverting again.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Another biased statement "close to Europe" .....

"In the first millennium A.D., the Slavs, who populated a vast territory from Vistula and Oder in the north to the northern coast of the Black Sea in the south, started to move east toward the East European Plain, which at that time was inhabited by Finno-Ugric and Baltic tribes (Sedov, 1994, 1995). The Slavs moved from different parts of their vast area, with their migration continuing across several centuries (Sedov, 1994, 1995). Old Russian nationality (whose descendants are modern Russians, Ukrainians, and Byelorussians) started developing in the second half of the first millennium A.D., because of the mixing of Slavic migrants with local residents (Sedov, 1995; Alexandrov et al., 2003)."Fakirbakir (talk) 21:27, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Therefore, the results of our study indicate the core features that resulted in the formation of the Russian gene pool; specifically, the mixture of two genetically different groups, the northern and the southwestern, which are apparently related to the two major inflows of Slavic settlers from Western Europe to the East European Plain. This statement supports the genetic position of the central zone located between the two ‘‘average Russian’’ extremes, with the central zone probably acting as the transgression area between the two. The later eastward movement of heterogeneous Slavic groups, followed by the inclusion of additional genetic elements into the gene pool, probably resulted in the formation of the more genetically different population of the southeastern section of the historical Russian area."Fakirbakir (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but what has this possibly biased research on Slavic genetics got to do with Hungarians, and especially Magyar tribes and Finno-Ugric people. And on top of it, what has anything to do with the Carpathian Basin and being a native of it? Can you be more clear in what exactly are you asserting? Maybe that Slavs originate from the Carpathian Basin and the Hungarians are the Slavs while the Magyar migration didn't take place?!--Codrin.B (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

1.The native Slavs and the native Finno-ugric people MIXED IN EASTERN EUROPE. You should not state that Finno-ugric peoples are not native in Europe. (Magyars are Finno-ugric people, and they are originated from region of Ural, this is the reason why we have to think about Russian researches) 2. BIASED research by Russian experts??? 3. You should read R1a as well in connection with Finno-ugric peoples.

" Although virtually absent among Romance, Celtic and Semitic speakers, the presence and overall frequency of haplogroup R1a does not distinguish Indo-Iranian, Finno-Ugric, Dravidian or Turkic speakers from each other. Some contrast, however, is unfolding in its subclade frequencies. Although the R1a1a* frequency and diversity is highest among Indo-Aryan and Dravidian speakers, the subhaplogroup R1a1a7-M458 frequency peaks among Slavic and Finno-Ugric peoples. Although this distinction by geography is not directly informative about the internal divisions of these separate language families, it might bear some significance for assessing dispersal models that have been proposed to explain the spread of Indo-Aryan languages in South Asia as it would exclude any significant patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia, at least since the mid-Holocene period."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987245/?tool=pmcentrez

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?section=results

"R1a1a1 (M417) East European-Steppe/

• Haplogroup R1a1 most likely originated around 4000 BC, most likely in the Eastern Europe. From there, it expanded quickly in all direction, spreading now from Scandinavia to South India and from the Balkans to Mongolia. It makes up a significant part of Scandinavian (Z284+), Balto-Slavic and Finno-Ugric (Z280+) as well as Indo-Iranian and Turkic (Z93+) speakers. It can be divided into several subgroups:
• R1a1a1g (M458+): the West Slavic subgroup of R1a1, can be considered Polish or Slovak/Slovene in the Carpathian Basin.
• R1a1a1h (Z93+): the Asian subgroup of R1a1a1, having a Kyrghyz and an Ashkenazi Jewish subgroup, and is also common among Indians and Eastern Iranians. In the Carpathian basin, it can be considered as Turkic admixture.
• R1a1a1i (Z280+): the North-East European subclade of R1a1a1. It is common from the Baltic to the Urals as well as the Carpathian Basin. The majority of the Steppe Magyars likely belonged to this group, carrying the Ugric Magyar language.

Fakirbakir (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, this genetics stuff is interesting if not confusing, but it doesn't seem to correlate with the linguistics, archaeology and historical sources at all. We still have to figure out many details regarding all the haplogroups and how genetics works and using solely genetics to make a case for being "native" is a dead end. Using genetics in isolation and in its infancy as a science same way as some use linguistics in isolation, or historical sources in isolation is a bad idea, bad "science detective work" and in the end just unscientific. And with all genetic research, you always have a problem of how many people were the donors/what ancient samples you use and where are they from. You can't have comprehensive results unless you check the entire populations of countries and their cemeteries. The fact that there is a possible link between members of Baltic, Slavic, Finno-Ugric, Indian and Jewish groups, doesn't make them natives of each others respective lands in any way. The mentioned groups formed much latter than when they might have shared the genes and developed completely different cultures, languages, traditions and core homelands. People moved around a lot, more than we think apparently, but we cannot say we are all natives of Africa because we all share genes with Lucy. The fact that Finno-Ugric people mixed with Slavs in Europe, doesn't make the Finno-Ugric European (they migrated, right?). But if it helps you, sure, we can consider the Finno-Ugric people European. However the main issue remains unsolved: the Finno-Ugric people in question are NOT natives of the Carpathian Basin, no matter how much you analyze genes of Ashkenazi Jews or Slovaks. Linguistics, archaeology and historical sources are very clear and comprehensive about this topic. Throwing some genetics in the mix won't change the situation one bit. You can make the case that 1000 years later and after mixing with local populations, and having some genes shared with the Turks, Slovaks and Indians since 10,000 years ago, the Magyars are by now "native enough". But that's all I can give you. The lead of the article remains incorrect and un-encyclopedic, just out of a desire to prove that Hungarians are what they are not. --Codrin.B (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Finno-ugric peoples have been living in Eastern Europe since the Slavs arrived to Europe. But yes, they (and all of the European peoples) migrated to Europe via North Africa (and Caucasus, Central Asia). For instance, Finno-Ugric population lived in the region of Moscow, however latter Slav migrations from the west changed the ethnic composition of the area. If I follow your reasoning Croats will not be native in Croatia, Serbs will not be native in Serbia (because they were new settlers from the north, around 500 AD) Finns will be not native in Finland and eventually nobody will be native in Europe because everybody came from Africa. On the other hand, Hungarian homeland was in Eastern Europe (somewhere at the borders between Europe and Asia next to the Slavs(west) and Turk/Iranian peoples(south)) and Hungarians have been living in the Carpathian Basin for 1100 years. I think this space of time is enough to be considered Hungarians native in the Carpathian Basin.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I too find the genetic information interesting, but also irrelevant to this discussion because we cannot be doing original research on this encyclopedia. If there's some peer-reviewed scientific source that uses the genetic studies to make the claim about native status, let's use it. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Let see: word "native" is indeed problematic here. Point made by Fakirbakir that Serbs and Croats would not be native in Serbia and Croatia is valid, but I do not see that Wiki articles about Serbs and Croats are claiming that these ethnic groups are "native". Even articles about Albanians and Greeks are not claiming that these ethnicities are "native", so why we should use this word to describe Hungarians? From that approach, readers of Wikipedia might conclude that Hungarian nation is older than Greek one. There are two criteria by which we can decide is something native or not: 1. language/culture, and 2. genetic origin. As far as language and culture are concerned, only Basque nation can claim that it is native in west-central Europe, since both, Indo-European and Uralic languages were brought there from the east. As far as genetics is concerned, all European nations are native to Europe. Now, if we want to implement these results into this article, we can describe Hungarians as (genetic) descendants of native inhabitants of Pannonian Basin (which they indeed are, as are all other ethnicities that live there), but Hungarian language/culture are certainly not native to the Basin and were clearly brought here from the east. This of course does not imply nativity issue of Finno-Ugric peoples in Eastern Europe - problematic question is nativity issue in the Pannonian Basin. PANONIAN 10:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

But where did you deduct from that Hungarians' ancestors lived in the Pannonian Basin and not in other parts of Europe? IndianuTalpaIute (talk) 10:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, this is valid point. Sources that speaking about genetic origin of Hungarians (such is this one) are not specifically claiming that Hungarian genes are native to the Pannonian Basin, but these genes are native to a wider area of Europe that includes Pannonian Basin. So, Hungarians are either descendants of native inhabitants of the Basin either of native inhabitants from the close proximity of the Basin (or likely, the mix of the two). PANONIAN 10:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There are also certain genetic characteristics (like hair or eye color) - see this source and this source - that genetically placing Hungarians together with neighbouring peoples. PANONIAN 10:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Those maps are misleading and explain nothing. The genetic researches about Hungarians are confusing and there are totally opposite opinions (started from Finno-Ugric haplogroups alias R1a1a1-z280 vs. N1c1 etc....). If the new researches are right about R1a1a1-z280 the Hungarian academic genetic researches will be almost entirely rubbish because of the different methods. For instance, they (the Hungarian academics in the previous decade) were looking for "Asian" markers instead of "real" Finno-Ugric markers ("European" markers as z280, according to the newest researches ).... Fakirbakir (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the word "native" because of non-consensus.Fakirbakir (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

@Panonian, very valid points. Thanks for the comments and contributions. @Fakirbakir, thanks for the balanced position. The lead looks much more better. Focusing on "Asian" markers for Hungarians seems indeed a wrong/outdated idea. The links betwen modern Hungarians and Huns/Turkic people seem very week at best. You just have to take a walk in downtown Budapest or in my home town Cluj-Napoca/Kolozsvár for that matter, to clearly notice that no Hungarian looks like this: Huns#Appearance and customs, even though some of my friend's names are Attila ;-) --Codrin.B (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, the Hungarians are native to Europe, so are the Serbs and Croats, and it is by no means contradictory to the theories about the Asian ancestry of Hungarians. There are very many articles on Wikipedia about nations and ethnic groups that mention this "native to" part, such as Greek people, English people, German people, Scottish people, Portuguese people, Norwegian people, etc. So why should not the article about the Hungarian people mention this? Furthermore, take a look at the article about the Māori people, it states: "The Māori (Māori pronunciation: [ˈmaːɔɾi], English: /ˈmaʊəri/) are the native or indigenous Polynesian people of New Zealand.", even though the Māori have only arrived in New Zealand around AD 1.300 [33], much later than the Hungarians have arrived in the Carpathian Basin. So if the Māori are native to New Zealand, then what is the problem with writing that the Hungarian people are native to the Carpathian Basin? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course, article about Hungarians should mention genetic origin of Hungarians (as it do mention here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_people#Ethnic_affiliations_and_genetic_origins ), but if it is mentioned in the lead section then it should be mentioned together with info about origin of Hungarian language and culture (otherwise, readers would think that Hungarian language is native to Pannonian Basin as well, which is incorrect). As for Māori people, article about them says that they are native or indigenous because of the fact that they live among people who are not native to that region. In the case of Hungarians, we do not have this distinction, since all Hungarian neighbors are native to the region and therefore what is a point to use description "native" for peoples who live in the area where "non-native people" virtually do not exist? Or perhaps you want to imply that Hungarian neighbors are not native to Pannonian Basin? PANONIAN 09:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Where did you read that the Māoris are considered native to New Zealand *only* because they live among people who are not native to that land? According to this approach, if (by some bizarre turn of events) all non-Hungarian inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin were replaced by Martians, then the Hungarians would suddenly become native, but currently they are not. Strange theory... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 06:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

User:PANONIAN gots a point. "In the late twentieth century, the term ["indigenous peoples"] began to be used primarily to refer to ethnic groups that have historical ties to groups that existed in a territory prior to colonization or formation of a nation state" ([34]). An interesting link is also Indigenous_peoples#EuropeIndigenous_peoples#Europe IndianuTalpaIute (talk) 07:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but "indigenous" does not mean the same as "native to". The articles about the Greeks, English, Germans, Norwegians, etc. (see more examples above), do not claim that these people are "indigenous", but they are "native to" a region. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Indigenous is the same with native to a land or region (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/indigenous). According to this definition: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/native native means "characteristic of or relating to people inhabiting a region from prehistoric times". I don't agree with the use of the term for the articles you enumerated either IndianuTalpaIute (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What about Métis people? They are also aboriginal people, however they are mixed (European and Indian) population.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Good example. I think that according to IndianuTalpaIute they are not native to that region, which also points to the direction that asking inhabitance from the "prehistoric times" is way too restrictive. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Not according to me, I only copy-pasted a wiktionary definition IndianuTalpaIute (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

IndianuTalpaIute: if it should be from the "prehistoric times" then there are not many people who are native to Europe (and then the Māori are certainly not native to New Zealand). I do not agree with that. According to your other approach, if I understand correctly, the relation "people X are native to region Y" does not have a meaning unless we specify reference groups, e.g., "people X are native to region Y with respect to people Z"? Then, all the articles that talk about people native to a land are abusing the word, because they do not set a reference group? In my opinion, "people X native to region Y" means that their identity as well as cultural-, linguistic-, religious-, etc. developments are primarily connected to that region. For example, even if the Hungarian tribes that conquered the region long-long time ago brought a language with themselves, this language radically changed over that more then eleven centuries their descendants lived in the Carpathian Basin. There is almost nothing left from their original semi-nomadic culture, the modern Hungarian culture developed in this region, etc. That is why I think that the Hungarian people are now native to this region.

PS: Ops, I see that meanwhile you have removed your other approach regarding settlers and natives. Nevertheless, my opinion about the question of native people is the same. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted my "other approach" when I found the definition about people being somewhere from prehistoric times. But that is still my personal view. The title of this chapter supports my opinion: [35] Slavs were considered indigenous to Transylvania, even if they had arrived there in the 6th century or something IndianuTalpaIute (talk) 08:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, terms "native" of "indigenous" are primarily referring to peoples who were very first inhabitants of certain areas. I know that terms are also misused in some cases, but why we should misuse these terms here? Speaking about Māori again, if they are first inhabitants of New Zealand, then they are also native or indigenous people there. Speaking about Pannonian Basin, even if all peoples that currently inhabiting that area are at least partial descendants of ancient peoples who lived here, there is no evidence that these ancient peoples were first or original inhabitants of the area. In fact, archaeological research do not show continuity in cultural development of the area, and prehistory of the Pannonian Basin is rather characterized by existence of various prehistoric cultures that replaced each other (often after preceding culture was destroyed by developers of the succeeding culture). Therefore, it is impossible to say who were first inhabitants of the Pannonian Basin, and due to that, description of any of the current nations that inhabiting the region as "native" or "indigenous" would be problematic - both, history and archeology are claiming that all these nations appeared in the area as a consequence of the migrations. So, even if these ethnic groups are living in the area for several centuries, that would not be enough to describe them as "native" if there are evidences that these ethnic groups appeared in the area after migrations and that there existed other inhabitants in the area before such migrations. Usage of term "native" for any ethnic group that inhabiting the area (not only for Hungarians) would be at least misleading (and also inaccurate). PANONIAN 10:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your argument regarding the continuity of people in the Carpathian Basin, the (majority of the) ancestors of all modern nations in the area are very likely appeared as a consequence of migrations. What I do not agree with is that we should only use the term "native to" for the very first inhabitants. If we ask for prehistoric roots, then probably only the Aboriginals of Australia are native to their land. Asking for being the first inhabitants are similarly problematic. My opinion is in line with the FreeDictionary [36], according to which only the word aboriginal "describes what has existed from the beginning; it is often applied to the earliest known inhabitants of a place". Regarding the word "native", it also gives an example as "native New Yorker", so saying that, for example, "Ferenc Puskás was native to Hungary" seems perfectly OK. I am also wondering who should decide what is a "misuse" of a term? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)