Talk:Demographics of Hungary/Archive 1

Can anyone tell me the source of the demographic breakdown?

1. Total fertility rate: 1.25 children born/woman (2000 est.) [very low]
2. Decreasing life expectancy - "unhealthy" lifestyle [until recently]

--Adolar von Csobánka (Talk) 18:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

---

László - where did your figure of 1% Jewish come from? According to the referenced census data there were 12,871 respondents professing the Jewish faith (approx 0.1%) Maybe 1% of the population is ethnically Jewish but that is a different matter to being religious. Still, if you'd like to expand on the issue in the article (and add further references) then feel free. Scott Moore 15:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I just put back the number that had been there without checking any source because I thought it was removed by accident. You are right, the original sentence said "the country's Jews", so it was out of place. Thanks for catching my mistake. KissL 16:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Anyone object if I remove the graph which is clearly inaccurate (I presume it is a forecast made before the 2001 census results were published)? Scott Moore 15:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong data

The table reffering to the historical population of Hungary is totally inaccurate. The Hungarian ethnic group, as all avaluable records are withnessing, where a minority inside the teritorry of the actual Hungarian Republic, until the late 13th century. In Slovakia, Transsylvania, and other periferic areas, the Hungarian population was less than 10% until the Ottoman conquest of central Hungary, when the waves of refugees swelled the local Hungarian minorities. Even then, the Hungarians remained less than 25% of the population of Transsylvania, Slovakia, Ruthenia, and other periferic areas. The large proportion of Hungarian ethnic group inside the Carpatian Basin is a relative new element, since the 19th century, and is the result of the intense Magyarisation policies of the Hungarian Governments. Today, the Hungarian ethnic group is abb 34% of the population of the Carpathian Basin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.196.150.157 (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

It's quite obvious it's wrong: it estimates the current Roma population to 0.1%, which is ridiculouly low. Every other source tells 2-6%. --80.99.1.94 (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not an estimation, it is the data of the census of 1980. Of course, almost 30 years have passed since then, and (a) during Communism, minority populations were always underestimated, furthermore (b) the Roma population has significantly increased in the previous few decades. If you read further, the article tells that the present Roma population is c. 3%. According to censuses. I believe there is a bit more of them, though. --Cserlajos ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Map

How nice job, Baxter9 - it is very interesting how some Hungarian editors in Wikipedia are pushing even the most extreme Hungarian nationalistic POV in numerous articles and in the same time they claim that almost every opinion of non-Hungarian historians is "nationalistic, anti-Hungarian", etc, etc. It is clear that you removed my map simply because it does not fit into your own POV and your only described reason for such removal was your claim that historian whom I used as a source is a nationalist. This is a known Serbian historian and whether or not he is politically involved in some political movements that you can describe as nationalistic there is no proof that he would forge history and produce false maps. In fact, most of political parties and movements in Serbia are nationalistic (at least partially), so according to your claim, we should assume that most of the Serbian sources about any subject are false and lie, right? Well, gues what: nationalism is not same as lie and forgery and an nationalist could be very objective in interpretation of some things. In another words, I found this map in the book written by this historian, but works of other Srbian historians provide very similar data about early population in the Kingdom of Hungary, so it is clear that this is not a forgery created by one historian, but generally accepted view among Serbian historians. In fact, modern genetical researches did proved that modern Hungarians are genetically same as their first Slavic and Romanian neighbours and that therefore they cannot be descendants of old Hungarians that came to Cenral Europe in 896 AD and this is something that fully correspond with map that I included into article. Genetics is an exact scince and logical and open minded person cannot ignore these facts. Of course, it is very hard to find such person here and my free time is very limited, so it would be futile for me to be involved in revert war because of one map. Please believe in what ever you want to believe, it is your life, not mine... PANONIAN 22:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other users. I removed your map, because it is against the NPOV. Your source is biased, it does not represent the world wide view, just yours. This is an encyclopedia, so please in the future add academic books, which represent the world wide view. Jovan Pejin, On RTV Novi Sad, a broadcast was emitted in Serbian language, that was instigating by nature. In his programme, Jovan Pejin, a historian and the manager of the civil organization “Svetozar Miletiæ Serbian National Movement”, forged the historical facts and named Voivodina Hungarians, Slovaks and Romanians settlers, who had been received in by Serbs and who occupied Serbian territories. According to him, the majority of Hungarians are actually Slavs, which is prooven by their “beautiful Slavic faces”.[1] or another: "2003. november, when he was the gest of the Television óf Újvidék, he spoke about his new book [Autonomija Vojvodine -- Košmar srpskog naroda (Autonomy of vojvodina-The nightmare of the serb nation)], and about his "views". After this interview Branislav Lečić and university teachers like dr. Marija Kleut, dr. Ljiljana Subotić, dr. Radmila Šević, dr. Marijana Pajvančić condemnd Mr. Pejin for his Hate speech, and launched a criminal action against him"[2]Baxter9 (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this map DO represent World view - for example here is map from an external source about genetics in Europe where you can see how Hungarians are genetically similar to their first neighbours and in the same time very different from distant peoples like Algerians, Finns, etc: http://www.geocities.com/littlednaproject/Y-MAP.GIF - there are many other similar genetics map on the Internet as well and there is no single one that claim that Hungarians are genetically different from their Slavic neighbours. As for Jovan Pejin, you actually quoted a web site of VMSZ ethnic Hungarian political party which itself is very nationalistic - in another words, you used biased source to show that Jovan Pejin is biased and that is simply ridiculous. Let analyze what he said there - did he said that Hungarians are bad people or that their rights should not be respected? No, he did not. As I see from your post, he said two very correct things: 1. that Hungarians, Slovaks and others settled in Vojvodina as colonists in 18th and 19th century where already Serbs lived before them and that is very correct historical fact (I have another book about this colonization written by another historian that provide exact year in which first Hungarian settled in every single place in Vojvodina). That are certainly not biased or forged facts and what I have here is an Hungarian source that also say that there were no Hungarians in Vojvodina in 1720: http://www.vmmi.org/durindo/images/2006-versec/versec05.jpg As for claim that majority of Hungarians are Slavs, why they would have genes so similar to their Slavic neighbours if that is not the case? See further map proofs: http://www.dnatribes.com/images/europa-web.jpg http://www.le.ac.uk/ge/maj4/EuropeMap+Tree.jpg So, it is clear that Pejin did not said anything that is false or incorrect - the only problem with his statement would be way in which he said that, i.e. "beautiful Slavic faces" thing, but anyway, is it not not better to tell the truth to somebody even if he would not want to hear that truth instead to hide a truth from him and feed his complexes about his origin? PANONIAN 08:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I dont know what is the connection between your map (territory that Hungarians occupied in the 10th 12th century) and modern genetic analyses about modern Hungarians. It is clear that Hungarians settled down in the whole Carpathian Basin (and not in that small area what your image is showing, so your home made image is fake) and the Hungarian percentage was 70-80% non Magyars numbered hardly more than 20 to 25 percent of the total population- and decreased later ( do to ottoman conquest, and influx of serb colonists and others). "what I have here is an Hungarian source that also say that there were no Hungarians in Vojvodina in [1720:"http://www.vmmi.org/durindo/images/2006-versec/versec05.jpg] I see dominant Hungarian population in the 11th century. You dont? (This is missing from your home made image) And this percentage changed when serb (and other) colonist arrived in the 1700s==>Population of Hungari in 1711 3,000,000, 1790 8,000,000(!).Baxter9 (talk)

Just to be clear, it is not "my home made image", but image exactly based on the map that can be found in the book written by Pejin - here is original image from the book and you can see that info in these two images is same (I simply made a coloured version): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pejin_book.JPG Also, this map only show who formed majority in which part of the Kingdom of Hungary in this time and it does not claim that Hungarians did not lived as minority in other parts of the kingdom. In fact, both, Slavs and Hungarians lived in most areas of the Kingdom of Hungary (as archaeology claim), but since there are no censuses or other records about exact ethnic situation in this time there are different opinions among historians who was majority in the kingdom in 10th-12th century. By opinion of most Serbian historians whose works I read, Slavs were majority, while Hungarians simply were a ruling class. In fact I can show you 3 different maps about this time period: (1.) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hungary_b._10th_century.png - the map uploaded by an Hungarian user which, according to its talk page, is based on the work of Dr. Györffy György from Magyarország története-Előzmények és magyar történet 1242-ig, and which show mixed Hungarian-Slavic population in the whole kingdom (2.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pejin_book.JPG - map from the book written by Jovan Pejin, which represent opinion of Serbian historians that Slavs were majority in most territories of the kingdom, which is based on archaeology, hydronyms, toponyms, etc, and (3.) http://www.vmmi.org/durindo/images/2006-versec/versec05.jpg - map from Internet Hungarian source that claim that Hungarians were majority in the 11th century (the last map would be indeed based on the fact that there are archaeological traces of Hungarians in these areas, but it completelly ignore archaeological traces of the Slavs). In another words, there are several opinions among various historians about the subject, and, as I recal, the purpose of Wikipedia is exactly to present all opinions about the subject, not to decide which one is correct and which one is wrong, and thus, I really see no reason why opinion of Serbian historians should not be presented as well? We can include into article both maps, the one based on the work of Györffy György and the one based on the work of Jovan Pejin, right? As for connection between these maps and modern genetical research, the connection lie in the fact that old Hungarians that settled in Central Europe in 896 AD were asiatic people genetically very different from modern Hungarians and if they were majority in the kingdom in the 10th century then modern Hungarians would have their genes (and they do not have such genes). The origin of modern Hungarians is exactly in the fact that Slavs that lived as majority in the kingdom in the 10th century were magyarized until the 15th century and modern Hungarians descending from them. Map presented by Pejin simply show area where original asiatic Hungarians were majority until 12th century when larger number of Slavs became magyarized. As for your 70-80% Hungarian percentage, to which historic period you exactly refer to? PANONIAN 11:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As for "attack other users" issue - I do not see that I mentioned name of any user. I only spoke about general problems with some users here. Eh, and just to illustrate for you how biased source you used here: during the election campaing, the VMSZ political party published in Subotica promotive material in two languages (Serbian and Hungarian) with very different messages: in Serbian language publication they promised progress, democracy and better life for all Subotica citizens, while in Hungarian language publication they claimed that Subotica "is a fortress of hungarism" and that they will fight for autonomy of ethnic Hungarians (the other Subotica citizens that actually form 65% of population of the city were not mentioned). PANONIAN 08:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Than read your own sentences again, please: "How nice job, Baxter9 - it is very interesting how some Hungarian editors in Wikipedia are pushing even the most extreme Hungarian nationalistic POV"Baxter9 (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned your name because I adressed my post to you, but I spoke about "some Hungarian editors" in general in connection with nationalist POV. PANONIAN 11:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

We should be Hungarians and Romanians or Serbs similar? Just look the average differences in pigmentation of hair eye skin color. Look anthropology maps about hair and skin color. >>>Hair Color or Eye Color<<< --Celebration1981 (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As for eye, skin or hair colour, see these maps: http://westernparadigm.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/blue_eyes_map2.jpg http://16.media.tumblr.com/7wwNYJv0Zg90r2jh8ktlzOqEo1_400.jpg http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/images/map_of_skin_color_distribution.gif I do not see there that Hungarians are different from their first neighbours, so if you have source that would support your claims, please provide it here. PANONIAN 08:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Balkanian people like romanians serbians have higher ratio of brown eyes and dark hair color. For a journeyer who know the region, it is a very visible evidence. No wonder that anthoropology maps show similar results.

Just type in google image searcher: "eye color map" "hair color map" http://images.google.com/images?hl=hu&rls=com.microsoft%3A*%3AIE-SearchBox&um=1&sa=1&q=%22hair+color+map%22&aq=f&oq= http://images.google.com/images?q=%22eye%20color%20map%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:*:IE-SearchBox&oe=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=hu&tab=wi

Balkanians have a very very different non-western Orthodox culture/civilization. --Celebration1981 (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

But this exactly prove my point that Hungarians are Slavs by origin. Balkanians are not typical example of Slavs, but a genetical mix of Slavs, Illyrians, Thracians, etc. PANONIAN 11:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: 1st paragraph?

What about: Besenyok=Pechenegs=Bosnyaks=Bosnians? Turks. Formed own buffer "state" in southwest; arrived before Kumanians. Kun=Kumanians=Cumanians (Kipchak? = Chipchaks?) Turks. Jasz=Yazigs Iranians.Arrived BEFORE both the Pechenegs, Kumanians, Mongols and Turks) Also don't forget three tribes of Khazar rebels (Kabars) among the original ten tribes. Turks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.22.193 (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Same old story on nationalities ...

Dear Wiki editors, pls be more accurate, there was such NO thing as Hungarian nationality before NATIONALISM. There were no Slovak or Romanian or whatever. There is a clear distinction on ethnicity only, but this is linked only to language/culture. People were talking several languages in KoH, for sure. For example, after Treaty of Trianon, Chechoslovak authorities were assessing the demographics and were asking people, are you Slovak or Hungarian? they replied, I speak both languages... then they voted for whatever was better for them. So, what does it mean percentage of Hungarians in 13th century? It is nonsense. What people outside of Hungary do not understand is that in the Middle Ages, Kingdom of Hungary was a relatively strong kingdom and gave shelter to all people inside. This kingdom sustained a milleneum, without major disturance of the borders - no other kingdom was able to do similar. The people living inside had a HUNGARUS mind, this is not being HUNGARIAN! That meant "linked to Kingdom of Hungary". So therefore I delete the lines which are bringing conflict. Abdulka (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I decided not to delete it, it looks good as it is. It is a good example of how people try to bias data. There are so many sources on both sides -- Slavs or Hungarians are more? Scarce Slavic tribes (if any?) Is it a war on sources? Or the source "reliability"? I believe in archeology and not in chronicles, lots of chronicles were found fake at the end. Archeology is difficult to make it fake. Do you know what is the difference between Slav and Hungarian tomb? Slav tombs have NO character whatsoever, they say it has no differentiation, so they say "this must be Slavic" -- but at the end it is just a theory, it is not FACT. Hungarian (or Avar, Hun, Scythian) tombs have very strong cohesion: all are entombed in the ground (not burnt) with the horse next to the person and most cases it is with some jewels or items of mettalurgic interest. Do you know the percentage of found tombs in the former area of Kingdom of Hungary? Little more than 4000 tombs, 45 tombs are "Slavic" (or whatever, as this could be something else). on the basis of the facts above, the figures are unrealistic and is "taken from the air". or if not, then we are talking about massive "Slavinisation" on the contrary of "Magyarisation". Abdulka (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are disputes about the population and ethnics composition in middle age hungary and I favors hungarians, the reason is there are NO ethnic groups or nationalities in middle ages, people are constantly migrating in that period and contacts between linguistic groups were very common. Assimilation is a negative word now but it is a natural process in the middle ages when people seeks food and protection from a more justice ruler. And Hungary played that role in central europe just like the Seljuks did in Anatolia and Arabs did in Syria. Adoption of an imposed language is quicker than you thought, consider the Anatolia became a turk speaking region within 100 years, carpathian basin would not take any longer especially hungarian king converted to catholism. Strong kingdom only makes that process more haste. Another good exemple is the process of language shift in England, where no big or strong centralised kingdom was build up by the anglo-saxons, however the migration of these germanis tribes changed the language in England for ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.220.20.167 (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Percentages

According to 1495 "early cesus" there were 454,000 people in Transsylvania (251,000 Hungarian-speaking, 100,000 Romanian-speaking and 100,000 German-speaking, 3000 others). According to 1786 Habsburg census 1,293,992 people lived in Transsylvania (Due the mass migration number of Romanians increased to 750,000). Also lived 380,000 Hungarians, 150,000 Germans and some other ethnic groups in Transsylvania. There are detailed data from the years of 1495, 1595, 1720, 1786, 1832, 1850 and the territories of Upper Hungary (today Slovakia) and Transsylvania.

Source: Károly Kocsis (DSc) - Zsolt Bottlik (PhD) - Patrik Tátrai: Etnikai térfolyamatok a Kárpát-medencébe határon túli régióiban + CD (for detailed data), Magyar Tudományos Akadémia (Hungarian Academy of Sciences) - Földrajtudományi Kutatóintézet (Academy of Geographical Studies), Budapest, 2006, ISBN 963-9545-10-4--Rovibroni (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)