Talk:Hungarians/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

RfC on Kniezsa's ethnic map from 1938

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do you recommend the inclusion of Kniezsa's ethnic map in the article gallery?

• Argument for: the map is still referred in some modern reliable sources
• Arguments against: Kniezsa's view has been criticized by many scholars, because of its non-compliance with later archaeological and onomastics research.

Previous arguments can be checked at Talk:Hungarians#Kniezsa.27s_ethnic_map 123Steller (talk) 09:21, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

FOR - After carefully reading the discussion and all opinions, I have no problem keeping the map, also other maps are criticized - even in this page - but there's not such a big fuss to remove them, unlike this Kniezsa map that have been a recurrent targeted subject of removal. I share the other editors PRO-arguments, furthermore maps may be reliable more or less, it is hard to have any historical map that would be 100% accurate and could not be the subject of some debate. Considering Wikipedia is full as well of maps created also by enthusiastic users with more or less mistakes or sometimes with a totally hyphothetic "accuracy", regarding the CONTRA-arguments also those could be easily removed. Unless there is not a general revision regarding the policy of maps - also referred above -, it would be odd to remove this one. I think it is enough to add after in description the notes and views on reliability. However, in some other pages I would add more maps next to existing ones, i.e. when maps related to debated theories are represented; as increasing objectivity.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC))

• Oppose. The results of archaeological research of the northern regions in the Carpathian mountains (e.g. Liptov, Orava, Kysuce, Považie, Turiec) are sumarized e.g. in Sources for the history of settlement of Slovakia from the 5th to the 13th century, Vol. II, Slovak Academy od Sciences, Nitra 1992. There are also recent publications (= large monographies) about the history of some regions e.g. Ulicny, F.: A history of settlement of Zemplín County, Zemplinska spolocnost, Michalovce 2001 and others. The map is absolutely non-compliant with any recent (archaeological or linguistics) research in the region. It is dated, controversial, demonstrably wrong in many cases and it does not help to understand the topic. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Ditinili (talk) 09:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• FOR, as per above. Borsoka (talk) 10:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose as per the extended discussion above. Fails per WP:PERTINENCE for use in the gallery as a succinct description of everything problematic about this outdated map would be completely WP:OFFTOPIC. Without such context provided for the reader, the map is both misleading to the reader, and superfluous to the scope of the article. The fact that WP:ITEXISTS on Wiki Commons is a non-argument for using the map in a general gallery entitled "Maps". In fact, the title of the gallery is not edifying. Maps of what? Topography, geological data, the borders of contemporary Hungary: maps of what? I haven't encountered the usage of such a section on any other articles about ethnic groups unless the maps deal with specifically with an historical period, or some other specific type of map, and are described as such by the subsection title. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
• FOR, as per KIENGIR's explanation above. Here is an example of an "enthusiastic map" ([1]) created by a user and placed in many high-importance articles. If this stands, everything can stand.--Mondiad (talk)
• Oppose. The map illustrates a theory that is not generally accepted. In the absence of the presentation of Kniezsa's theory in the article body, the map requires a large caption to explain the context of the map and the critics (in order to keep neutrality). I propose the move of the map to Demographics of Hungary, which is a more specific article and where the whole context can be described in a certain section. In fact I don't see the motivation of the "Maps" gallery as a whole. There are already other 3 maps by the side of the text. 123Steller (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
• FOR, It's an excellent map, still cited in modern scholarly works. Kniezsa's view is well-known in the field of history and demography. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion about "excellent map" and the progress in last 80 years is summarized above (curiously, for the most disputed areas it is scientifically refuted). Ditinili (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, the map is not just about the territory of present-day Slovakia - as you dispute there some validity in scope the new research - but the whole Kingdom of Hungary, and also with the inaccuracies you claim still is one of the best maps from the era that would estimate very near a possible an ethnic distribution of the country that time. Could someone present a better map with less disputes? Does exist one?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC))

I know that it is not just about present-day Slovakia. However, the map which erases more or less a whole ethnic group from the history and it shows its territory as "uninhabited" (what is scientifically refuted by archaeology and onomastic) or just "Hungarian" can be hardly described as an excellent in 2017. Even if I can draw another map showing which areas were clearly inhabited or mixed (contrary to Kniezsa's view from 1938 based on his contemporary knowledge and incomplete data), nobody has to present better map. The problem is not in some replacement. We simply should not present such dated works in the general article and then write lengthy explanation that it is not reliable.Ditinili (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see "more or less any ethnic group" that would be "erased from the history", moreover I see all of them present. So your problem is with the mountain areas, that are depicted scarcely inhabited?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC))

Shortly, a few blue and cyan areas in the north really do not represent the modern knowledge about the settlement in the 11th century. As I have already noticed, this theory was not unknown to the Czechoslovak science, because several Czech and Slovak scientists had similar opinions.Ditinili (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The publishing date has nothing to do with reliability. Ditinili, you say that his opinion is "scientifically refuted", however, the linguist Anita Racz states (2013) that the results of Kniezsa, Kertesz etc.. are largely accepted by the research community WITHOUT reservation [2]. So, there is nothing refuted. His view is perhaps disputed but definitely not refuted. Also, you should know that the mountainous areas in the kingdom were usually uninhabited or sparsely populated, densely forested in the Middle Ages (You should check the environmental history of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary). Fakirbakir (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Fakirbakir... What does it mean "largely accepted"? What is exactly accepted, to which extent and what is not accepted? Does it confirm the accuracy of the concrete map? I am afraid that no. I will not speculate what was inhabited or not or about a density, or about "environmental history" because it is 2017 and we have large multi-disciplinary collective works about the settlement (see above), archaeological research, etc. And this map is not compliant. Period.Ditinili (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I think there is no need to repeat the above debate here. Borsoka (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I am only suprised by the ignorance of any rational argument. This leads to literally comic situations, when somebody mentions the current state of research and it is so incompatible with some nationalistic theories that it is refused as an "incorrect", and "corrected" with "excellent" interwar works. I don't speak only about wikipedia, just for the illustration [3]Ditinili (talk) 06:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand that the existence of theories which significantly differ from the views that we regard well-established theories could be surprising. However, I still do not understand why the above debate should be repeated here. Borsoka (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Note, that we do not speak about new theories which "which significantly differ from the views that we regard well-established theories", but about refuted theories (end). Ditinili (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the 11th century, the demographers just fumble in dark. The can't even give us a proper estimation about population density. So, don't tell me that this or that theory is "absolutely refuted". Fakirbakir (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Fakirbakir... with dozen thousands pages published on this topic (see some references in the previous discussion), extensive archeologic and onomastic research, etc, we can safely say that the size of "uninhabited" areas was largely overestimated by Kniezsa and there are dozens of archeologic sites that refute this 80 years old theory. Weasel words like "demographers just fumbles in the dark" should be interpreted exclusively in the light of these findings. Since the map largely overestimates the size of "uninhabited" or "sparsely populated" areas at expense of Slavic/Slovak population (once again, there is a serious research behind this statement) and it seriously underestimates the size of ethnically mixed areas, it is more confusing than helpful. These evidences cannot be blown away by another weasel words like "something" (what exactly?) is largely accepted.

This source [4] contains a catalogue of 731 settlements in Western Slovakia dated from the 5th to the 13th century (some of them have several localities). Every entry contains a description, a type of finding, dating, references to reports from archaeologic research and info about the first mention (if it exists). This source[5] contains the catalogue of 642 settlements in Eastern Slovakia. And similar catalogue with hundreds records exists also for Central Slovakia. Thus, we can say that Kniezsa's view was scientifically refuted without "fumbling in dark".--Ditinili (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Please try to be neutral (and serious). How can archaeological data from an eight-century-long period "scientifically refute" that a study about the population of the Carpathian Basin in one century? Were those settlements continuously inhabited for eight centuries? Do archaeological data prove that all those settlements were inhabited by Slavic-speaking groups? Please let the community decide. Borsoka (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I am absolutely serious. You can take data from any century, e.g. from the 11th century and compare with Kniezsa's view on "uninhabited and sparsely populated" areas. It is r-e-f-u-t-e-d. It is not my WP:OR, I mentioned it only to show that this scientific view is based on some real data. Current data, in contrast with work from 1938.

"Do archaeological data prove that all those settlements were inhabited by Slavic-speaking groups?""

Archaeologic data can confirm settlement of region before the arrival of Hungarians, they can confirm continuity of the settlement during some period. Already these data can refute the map (inhabitance, density). You can also track both ethnic groups to some time and the 11th century is not so far from this time.

However, it is (at least for Slovakia) refuted also by onomastic. It means that by the same method as was used by Kniezsa. For example, you can took a catalogue of toponymes used by Kniezsa and you can show that it is largely incomplete what influenced his conclusions. This is what for example Branislav Varsik (and others) did.

It is scientifically refuted for Slovakia. This is a serious issue, because what is the value of map then? --Ditinili (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Settlement continuity in the early middle ages? No, you are not serious, taking into account early medieval agricultural techniques. OK. I understand that Slovak archaeologists proved that the mountainous regions of Slovakia were densely inhabited in the 11th century. Do you think this is a generally accepted view? For instance, in 2003 Gyula Kristó published a monography dedicated to the non-Hungarian ethnic groups in Hungary ([6]). He based it on the available written sources which prove how the sparsely inhabited mountainous regions of Slovakia were colonised by Moravian, Polish and Ruthenian peasants in the 13th-15th centuries. I do not say Kristó is right. I only emphasize, we cannot say that the medieval settlement history of Slovakia is so cut clear as you have been trying to prove. Borsoka (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Borsoka, please try to be polite and avoid using demagogic techniques like pretending that your opponent said something what he did not only to show how "absurd" it is. Slovak archaeologist do not say that "mountain regions" (in general) were densely populated. Slovak archaeologists say that that the settlement network in some "uninhabited" or "sparsely populated" areas was absolutely comparable with lowlands, other were settled but the density was really lower. Anyway, the density of the settlement in any country in the 11th century was not homogenous. On the other hand, some areas in lowlands were sparsely populated, because of sandy soils or swaps. In any case, this image differs from Kniezsa's contemporary view.

I do not understand how written sources can "refute" archaeological findings. We have multidisciplinary approach and local scientists have been researching this problem since the Old Slovakia cause. A popular myth about Moravian, Polish and Ruthenian colonization is more then 100 years old but it is still present in some Hungarian works. No doubt, there was such colonization. However, the view on its impact is significantly different. Onomastic (a method used by Kniezsa) DOES NOT support this theory about significant immigration. For example, Polish preserved proto-Slavic g (not present in Slovak since the 12th century) and nasal vowels (lost in the 10th century), Ruthenian is not even West Slavic language, Czech/Moravian does not contain several features that came from Proto-Slavic and are preserved only in Slovak. Especially, it does not contain several Slovak non-West Slavic features because isoglosses go through Western Slovakia. More, Moravian areas from where this colonization wave came were not densely populated and cannot be a source of large migration stream. Both Czech and Slovak scientists know a lot about this topic since both historiographies evolved together for a long time. Thus, why is the overwhelming number of toponymes in these "uninhabited" areas Slovak and not a mixture of Czech, Polish and Ruthenian? Why these ethnic groups abandoned their languages in favor of Slovak in previously "uninhabited" and "sparsely populated" areas? (Of course, in areas with significant Ruthenian migration, Ruthenian placenames are documented and preserved). How could the Slovak language develop common features so quickly if Slovaks lived in few isolated islands separated by large uninhabited areas as it is presented in Kniezsa's map?

Anyway, whatever Kristó believes about the 13-15th century, Kniezsa's map was refuted by the archeologic and onomastic research and DOES NOT represent the current state of research. Ditinili (talk) 07:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. I understand Slovak archeologists also realized that there were sparsely populated areas in early medieval Slovakia. I also understand that Slovak historians claim that Slovakia was an exceptional region in the Kingdom of Hungary: while waves of colonists settled in other territories of the kingdom (both in the lowlands and in the mountains) during the middle ages, the lowlands and mountains of Slovakia were not significantly affected. The medieval documents cited by Kristó about colonization are obviously misleading. Anyway, whatever some historian believe about the 5th-11th century, Kniezsa's map is still regularly cited in reliable sources (as Fakirbakir demonstrated it). Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course, that Slovak archaeologist also realized that there were sparsely populated areas. Like they were in the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary or in any country. The question is: "is the current knowledge about the size and location of uninhabited areas compliant with Kniezsa's map?" The answer is: NO.

Fakirbakir DID NOT demonstrate anything. He uses weasel words like "the results of Kniezsa, Kertesz etc.. are largely accepted " without saying what exactly is accepted, what is not accepted, if it means that the author DIRECLY says that the map is correct or he means that some other conclusions are correct, etc. Per WP:RS: Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. And even the statement about "largely accepted" results could be questioned by citations of other Hungarian authors (including Kristó). --Ditinili (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. I UNDERSTAND YOU THINK ONLY STATEMENTS WRITTEN WITH CAPITAL LETTERS AND IN BOLD ARE IMPORTANT, SO I ADOPT THIS WAY OF COMMUNICATION. PLEASE, TRY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OTHER EDITOR'S MESSAGES. FAKIRBAKIR VERIFIED HIS CLAIM: [7]. Kniezsa's map is still regularly cited in reliable sources, so we can use it. Sorry, I think there is no point in continuing this debate: you think you know the Truth about this subject and I do not want to participate in your crusade for it. Please let the community decide. Borsoka (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

UTC)

Fakirbakir "verified" his claim by the author (Laszlo Makkai) who had never published a single book about toponymes on the disputed territory (present-day Slovakia). He had also never participated on any other local research, archeologic, historic or linguistic. His expertise in this field is zero. I several times pointed to this problem and never got a serious answer. By the way, this citation is from the book about Romania.

It is year 2017 and not 1938 and we have large archaelogic catalogues, large monograhies about local toponymes and they should be taken seriously. If you give me reference to an author or a collective who REALLY did some archeologic or onomastic research in Slovakia a he says that the map is OK,it would be really nice.Ditinili (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

(1) Please remember Fakirbakir also referred to an other (much younger) scholar. [8] (2) Please remember I referred to Kristó's 2003 monography [[9] which contains several references to Kniezsa in connection with the population history of Slovakia. (3) Please remember that I said that I could accept a general policy about maps completed before WWII. However, I cannot accept that Kniezsa's map should be deleted first, since it is still cited and utilised in reliable sources (in contrast with other old maps of much lower level of scholarship). [10] (4) Anyway, this was my last message during this debate, because drawing your atteintion to old messages from the same debate is quite time-consuming. Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

(1) I have asked several times, if this "younger scholar" (Anita Racz) directly said that the map is correct (per WP:RS policy). Unfortunately, I still don't have any answer. She did not and here is the paper [11]. She referred to several authors, the opinions of some of them contradict each other. WP:WEASEL Anita Racz explicitly wrote in the same paper: "The examination of the chronological particuliarities of the place names which I collected, based on a much larger sample compared to those of previous studies, seems to confirm the arguments cited above and the analyses proposed by Gyula Kristó and Lajos Kiss", p. 258, 2nd paragraph. This is argument against the chronology proposed by Kniezsa. (2) Gyula Kristó provides a criticism of Istvan Kniezsa's paper published in 1938 on the question of ethnicity in Hungary in the 11th century. It was discussed here[12]. Thus, it is absurd to cite this author to "authorize" the map.WP:NOR He did exactly opposite. So, none of these two authors confirms that this dated map is OK. (3) I do not say that the map should be deleted (in general). I say that it requires lengthy explanation because of its non-compliance with the current state of research and this general article is not the right place. I also said that it is misguiding, because it shows several areas as "uninhabited" or "sparsely populated" what is not compliant with the current state of research and it shows ethically mixed areas as "Hungarian" what is also not compliant with the current state of research. Then, I said that this is a serious issue and I suggest to explain it another article, for example the article about the author István Kniezsa (his methods, assumptions, contributions, acceptance, criticism) . --Ditinili (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Istvan M. Bak (CEU): "An excellent overview of the multi-ethnic character of early medieval Hungary is offered by Istvan Kniezsa......"[13] There is nothing "refuted". Fakirbakir (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Ditinili, please try to understand that Hungarian historians often sharply criticize each other. For instance, Gyula Kristó and György Györffy rarely accepted each other's views. However, they were scholars, they published peer reviewed studies, so their work can be referred to in WP articles. Yes, Kristó did not fully accept Kniezsa's theory, but he referred to Kniezsa's study several times in his above mentioned work, without any sign of major reservations. Borsoka (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that Hungarian historians often criticize each other. I do not understand how can criticism or "sharp criticism" confirm that some work represents modern scholarship or that concrete map is "excelent". 3 of 4 Hungarian authors cited here have objections against Knieza's chronology, the first (Kristo) says that Kniezsa despite his own intentions, depicted the peoples of the 12th and the beginning of the 13th centuries, instead of the early 11th century (this is without any sign of major reservation??). Anita Racz rather supports Kristo and Kiss instead of Kniezsa and Valeria Toth says that it is groundless in today's science.

Varsik and other authors also refere Kniezsa's work, e.g. Varsik in his works about the settlement of Eastern Slovakia cca 300x, but his conclusions are very different, so I suggest to avoid weasel words like "it is still cited". --Ditinili (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I propose the rename of the gallery to "Maps of the Hungarian disapora" and keep the relevant maps. The issue of the 11th-century demographics is not simple enough to explain it in an image caption. 123Steller (talk) 09:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If you want to initiate a new RfC, please try it under a separate section. Yes, early medieval history is also a difficult topic. Unfortunatelly, WP requires that we try to summarize the relevant issues. Borsoka (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• FOR, reliable academic work. Fakirbakir provided several sources which confirm this. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are Hungarians a Turkic people ?

Constantine VII in the De Administrando Imperio, writes about the Magyar tribes as Turcois ("Turks"), stating that they spoke a Turkic language. Today, in all schools from Turkey, and other Arabic countries, pupils learn that Hungarians, Bulgarians, Azers, Turkmens and Uzbeks are from Turkic family. Interestingly, a lot of words from Hungarian language are today in the Turkic language. Recco.

Well, the pan-Turkism have many interesting ideas, sometimes a little bit far form the reality from my point of view. As you known,the same author also mentioned "Sabartoe Asphaloi" and anyway "Turcois" was an exonym among many others that were used for the Hungarians, like Scythians, etc. Becuase of the Ottoman Conquest in Hungary, about 150 years the Turkic words could be loaned easily. About the ethnogenesis about the Hungarians several theories exist, some offically accepted, some not. In my opinion a few Turkic tribes may have joined to the landtaking Hungarians, but not this would be the major component. However, besides of the theories, the Finno-Ugrian or Turkic languagues are agglutinative languages, as the Hungarian, this a similarity which roots are in the more ancient times in a lingustic way, rather then an ethnicity/origin issue(KIENGIR (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)).

Hello, KIENGIR; to answer your question, no, Hungarians are not a Turkic peoples in any way, shape or form. They are not culturally, genetically or linguistically related to the Turkic peoples and language family in any way. Also, i'm interested and have to ask, where did you hear that in Turkish schools that students are taught that Hungarians are Turkic or that there are a lot of Hungarian words in Turkish? Because that is not true.

Not to mention, Pan-Turkism is a radical Turkish far-right nationalist movement attempting to group the Uralic, Finnic, and Turkic branches and peoples into one so I wouldn't take them seriously in any way. As for Turkish loanwords in Hungarian, there are very few because Hungary was not under Ottoman control for a long time (only one century and a half, compared to their Balkan southern neighbors which were for over half a millennia aka almost 500 years) and that once Hungarians reclaimed their southern land from Turkish control they tended to destroy almost all forms of Ottoman reminders such as mosques, administrations, buildings, etc. -2600:1001:B12D:682:2A35:2AD:2F04:320B (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151001050145/http://archive.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS047.pdf to http://archive.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS047.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Opluset, sorry, not I was the one who altered the lead recurrently, I just restored it. "Finno-Ugric" is not an ethnic group, but a language family, therefore it is fallacious and anyway not needed there, since "Hungarian" is the ethnic group itself. The rest of your edits were accepted.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC))

Then how come there is such a page called Finno-Ugric peoples which members Hungarians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opluset (talk • contribs) 22:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

@Opluset: Please read WP:WINARS. KIENGIR is correct. The article on "Finno-Ugric peoples" is structured in a misleading manner suggesting that DNA and contemporary ethnic groups are one and the same. It is the other article that needs work on it in order to clarify the distinction between ancient haplogroups, migratory patterns, and linguistic connections are not the same thing as modern ethnic groups and the nation-states which have evolved over millennia. It's rather like saying that ethnic groups who speak Indo-European languages are Indo-Europeans. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Well they are Indo-European if they speak an Indo-European language as there is no other way the tongue could have reached a nation - or there is no way a nation could have been able to sustain its identity as its "original" group once all members adopted the new language. Things like this work for a very short time because when ethnic group 1 takes on the language of ethnic group 2 (inevitably followed by naming conventions which are a property of language), the two "sets" become indistinguishable. The closest we come to any form of success rate here is either looking at the former slave colonies where suddenly dark-skinned people talk their own form of an Indo-European language (e.g. English or French) but in this case, they have lost their original identity and cannot be considered anything else ethnically (Africa for instance has more internal variation than the rest of the world combined). Even then, as Malcolm X once said, the slave descendants will all have some "slave master" blood in them since there were widespread cases where the dominant group took advantage of the women. Or the other example involves people like me, Ukrainian in the UK. Some diasporans lose their language to the native tongue of their chosen region, but this brings us back to the beginning: I am not an example here but once these people who have rejected their parental language develop their lives in the new country, the "ethnicity" will not be enduring indefinitely across generations and in future, the ethnicity will be phased out by the dominant nation. --Coldtrack (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained change of statistical data / Denmark-Netherlands

Dear IP(s),

could you give an explanation why the same chamge is persisted, why the data regarding Denmark is overriden with the suspected data of Netherlands?

Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC))

"Biologically, the population around 1000 AD in Hungary was made up almost exclusively of Europeans."

Sorry but what on earth is a "European" and what the heck is an Asian for that matter? It may be sourced but since when did continents, especially fake continents, come to have progenitors? All the author can possibly mean is that the lands were already inhabited, whilst "Asia" just happens to have been the most recent location at the time that those Magyars were living. Needs rewriting. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty it generally should be clear in a layman's context what the term "European" means here, but I changed the wording of the sentence anyway so it would be more specific. ReformedPenal (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Madjars

please add link to "see also" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.218.1.77 (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hungarians, also known as Magyars

Hungarians, also known as Magyars: this is a wrong assumption to start with. The adjective Hungarian in English does not differentiate between the inhabitants of Hungary and ethnic Magyars, but these are two different concepts. I will edit this entry when I have a little time on my hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiduowen (talk • contribs) 06:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No way, they are not different concepts, since the two terms are overlapping. Primarily Hungarians refer to ethnic Hungarians - of course the same time every inhabitants or citizens of Hungary without ethnicity, as it is true for any other terms like Germans, English, Norwegian, etc. - while Magyar is secondary used term (more explicit reference to ethnic Hungarians). Thus "Hungarians" primarily contains and meaning "Magyars". As I recall, you already commented once to my talk page with a huge nonsense regarding Lajos Kossuth and invented the "Ugrian" term for him, along with many pseudoscientific POV pushing. (KIENGIR (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC))

What is quite clear is that the "adjective Hungarian in English" means someone from Hungary. A person from Romania, even one who speaks Hungarian, is in normally English, a Romanian. This page is incorrectly called "Hungarians", meaning something different - "ethnic Hungarians" or "Hungarian speakers". The word Magyar is pretty-much unknown, except to stamp collectors who know that "Magyar Posta" stamps are from Hungary. Nigej (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nigej, my further addition is, yes historically, normally and obviously in every context it has been the meaning "from that country", because it was defaultly assumed that the country you came from you carry it's culture, langauge and origin (ethnicity). Later on nowdays, as the concept of legal residence, citizenship and other developments became common, as modern concepts of nationality and ethnicity, obviously there are cases where nationality (= modern citizenship) not necessarily equaled with ethnicity, though broader back of history the national conscience also many times were not identical to ethnicity.

Thus the original term of meaning like Hungarian, German, English, Norwegian did not change, but in some cases because of the latter may be identified and interpereted differently. Thus I don't agree the article's name would be incorrect, since also in the common speech "Hungarians" refer to the country and their whole nation (all citizens), primarily Magyars as it is true from Germans, English, Americans, Finnish, French, etc., it would be totally odd to put "ethnic" before since then there would be an article for "Hungarians" and for "ethnic Hungarians"? Totally mistaken and false concept would be, since the root is the original meaning when ethnicity and nationality was not separated.

P.S: moreover this is pushed by those who by this separation try to corrupt the identity of some historical Hungarian persons who also considered themselves Magyars, though having foreign origin, the very possible Slovak user pushes a local concept where before the 20th century they sisytematically call every Hungarian as "Uhorksy", while after WWI they call every Hungarian as "Magyar" in order to distinguish the classic Kingdom of Hungary of the post WWI Hungarian state and with this to manipulate history and identity back in time, fogetting that Hungarian has been an exnomyn and Hungarians always called themselves Magyars, before and after and most of the world also before and after referred us as Hungarians. Very interesting, that this is not pushed regarding Germans, where the same way these circles could force and push the term "Deutsch" (as Germans always refferred themselves) and manipulate and confuse the same way, but of course there are not so many counter-interested parties like in the case of Hungary and her classic territories and history.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC))

Not exactly. The term Hungarian can refer to ethnicity (Magyar) or a nationality in the Western sense (= a citizen of the state). However, this name was historically used also by other people (Slovaks) for a different reason. They did not have a special ethnonyme for Hungarians (cca until the 18th century), so they used it (very naturally) to refer themeselves. A very short note that this term could (historically) refer to non-Hungarian people can make this article better and definitely not worse. We cannot assume that an average English reader is an expert on the history of Central Europe. Otherwise "Hungarians, also known as Magyars" is OK. --Ditinili (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia, so it can hardly get any worse. The average reader will find that Hungarians live in Hungary and speak Hungarian before moving on to an unintelligible section about the origin of the word, then unnecessary history, followed by meaningless drivel about haplogroups, before finding mini-maps which mean nothing to them and finally a few random pictures. Surely Hungarians deserve better. I know that this sort of articles is mired in politics but we all need to remember than only 1 in 500 of the world population are Hungarians and the article should mean something to the other 499 who, as you say, know little about central europe and its history. Nigej (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ditinili, I don't know why you wrote "not exactly", my argumentation was correct and I also expressed the same like you (though more detailed and thorough mentioning all the background infromation). And of course these "other people" could be any ethnicity existed, not just Slovak.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC))

I see, you probably meant it to the P.S. section. I wanted to express, there are some goups, views to try to misuse this, but above I exactly expressed the same you did in your second sentence. Also by Russians, Germans, Poles or any similar article the reference may be also true for ethnic minorities in any historic sense that was the subject of the country with a common national identity even if having different ethnic origin, we cannot put before every denomination i.e. "ethnic", since it is obvious that primarily what is meant for.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC))

I mean - we should distinguish between a) Hungarian: the liguistic/ethnic identity (Magyar) b) Hungarian: the cultural identity which gradually disappeared mainly in the 19th century (Hungarus consciousness, not to be confused with Natio Hungarica - the historic multi-ethnic political nation) c) Hungarian: a citizen of Hungary. I think that a) and c) are clear for an average reader, but not b). I suggest something like: "the term can refer also to historical cultural identity regardles of linguistic differences (wikilink: Hungarus or Hungarus Consciousness or something similiar).--Ditinili (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

a) & c) are the basic interpretation that holds for every nation having a country. b, could be also true for other countries/nations, i.e. nobility of German states or Austrian Empire also had Slavic origin members who fully integrated and even adopted the consciousness and national identity...I mean Hungarus consciousness was mostly along with Natio Hungarica and had not necessarily connection to noble status - similarly to other countries -; in other words Natio Hungarica gradually had Hungarus conscience...of course in the 19th century as various national awakenings took place, this has been transformed, but not necessarily with such clear delimiters.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC))

Well, we agree that the term Hungarian could mean also something else than the linguistic identity, that it was a separate phenomene and it gradually disappared during the 19th century. We can write an article about the topic and add a short note to this article for EN reader who has absolutely no idea about this concept and can be potentionally confused.--Ditinili (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the reader now would be yet confused, since if the editor on the top is not raising this - who does it becuase of his personal support for a fringe POV already presented in my talk and the Lajos Kossuth page-. Though I would word it like so: "Historically the term also cover people with Hungarus Consciousness; a Hungarian national-cultural identity without speaking the Hungarian language and/or having Hungarian origin".(KIENGIR (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC))

The pope approved ?

"The Pope approved Hungarian settlement in the area when their leaders converted to Christianity ..."

Aproved? APPROVED???? Nobody asked that bloke! Not even the traitor steven! REMEMBER! Steven had VETO power in the papal election! So did all Magyar kings! The pope was liking steven's aaammm ... just to make him be part of the catholic empire. Hungary was THE! major force in Europe at the time.

Let us all remember, in 907 the united German forces attacked the Hungarians. "Ugros to be eliminated" was written on their flags. At Pozsony - Bratislava today - the whole German army was annihilated. The survivors run to Ennsburg where king Louise confronted the Magyars with his fresh army. King Loiuse's army was annihilated too and the Hungarians only stopped at the Ens river.

But this is 'conveniently' ignored to be able to say that "Pope approved Hungarian settlement".

The article is full of mistakes, lying by omissions and anti-Hungarian biased. It needs to be totally rewritten by an unbiased author! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC) There were mostly Southern German army in battle of Pozsony (Pressburg). ""Ugros to be eliminated" was written on their flags." That modern Urban legend was debunked long time ago: https://tenyleg.com/index.php?action=recordView&type=places&category_id=3115&id=1308636 --Liltender (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Genetics section

The article mess up the info about ancient Hungarian samples and the researches about modern poplulations. Non-reliable university studies must be treated with cautions, since the Hungarian universities have not enough samples from modern Hungarian population to make reliable statements about modern Hungarians. Note, that they are often politically divided, and not trustfull. However the huge global American pop. genetic researcher laboratories like 23 and me, Familtree DNA, Acestry DNA etc... had teens of thousands of modern Hungarian samples and they are more neutral (not politically motivated). --Free Royal City (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is one of the worst on Wikipedia, filled with plenty of meaningless stuff and almost completely unintelligible to the average reader. Quite embarrassing for quite an important article. The genetics section is probably the worst part. Feel free to improve it, if you have the expertise (which I don't). Nigej (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES and GAPS in Hungarian genetic researches:

We must conclude that the population genetics is strongly based on statisticcal methodes, thus the precision is relie on the number of samples. Many Hungarian Wiki editors can not understand , that small university labs are not able to genetrically determine modern populations, because of the lack of money and enough big staff to make mass sample genetic reserarches. So many of the Hungarian editors come up weith the laughable argument, that it is a "university research" thus it is serious think.... simply ridiculous argument. blah blah blah..... Both the equipment and large statistical database of the global big companies are not comparable with this tini university labs. Even the knowledge of scholars of these global companies are more up to date than this small universities. Moreover they are unbiassed and independent of the bellow mention political ideological fights of Hungary:

Danger from the Right-WING self-appointed "shaman-scholars": , or the "Are you anti-Hungarian?" synrome:

The pseudo scientific Turanist (Hun Scythian Partian Sumerian Turk tales) research center was estabilished in Hungary (Magyarságkutató intézet) by the goverment, as a counter institution for the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, because the Academy can remian more independent institution, and did not follow the political wishes. And there is the probléem of interpretation of ethnicity in modern Hungary (politically it was not such a problem before 1945). They often include different identity groups like Jassic and neo-Cuman people, automatically as ethnic Hungarians. Yes some cumans survived the Great Ottoman wars in the historic Cumania reserve area (called as Kunság in Hungarian). These people often have also dual identity. In other countries doesn't make national or ideological problem if some different origin subgroups were researched separatedly. However in Hungary it is a scandal, because these so-called historically very loyal neo-Cumans and Jassic people are "DESERVES" to be coubnted as ethnic Hungarians. Yes they are politically Hungarians and they spoke Hungarian language since the 17th century, but science can not based on emotions, like "they deserve to be ethnic Hungarians because of their loyality". Don't forget, these subgroups in Alföld region have very different typically Eastern European traditional material culture instead of Central European material Culture in Hungary, and they had strong own seprarted identity before the communism!

The danger from the Leftist - Liberals in Hungary: ( "Are you nazi?" type syndrome )

However not only the far-right ideologies represent danger for real good quality reliable pop. genetic researches, but their opponents the leftist liberal circles too.. Some people on the left and liberals considers everybody equally Hungarians, who have citizenship or born in Hungary. This is known as the so-called "Political nation" in every countrires. It based on citizenship and simple identity. According to this logic Everybody is automatically Hungarian, who consider himself a Hungarian. This leftist liberal circles deny the existence of any ethnic groups, not only the Hungarian but also all other ethnicites in Europe, and they became angry when they hear the words "ethnic - Hungarian", but they became similar angry when they hear ethnic German ethnic Pole ethnic Czech , etc.... because they can accept only "Political nation". In this regard they are indifferent to their other European leftist-liberal thining people. For example some leftist liberal researches automatically included the verly mixed highly multi-cultural Budapest in the population genetic researches without making consideration about the Austro-Hungarian era multi-ethnic past of the city. For example in the 2000s if somebody mentioned that Jews must be counted as separate ethnic group in genetic researches (not as ethnic Hungarians), it caused scandal, and the leftist liberals called this as type of nazi fascist attitude. Fortunatelly, Nowadays it slowly changed.

However the rightist interpretation with their anti-Academy institution (Magyarságkutató Intézet) did not changed at all.

Chronic fear from regional genetic comparisons in Hungary

I also noticed They are also affraid (or don't have money in their small labs) to make comparison of various big regions in Hungary, and compute genetic distances of the people of these regions. Some of these nationalist thinking researchers somehow affraid, that the result would "harm" the identity of various reginal populations. (Which I found really childish and ridiculous in the 21th century) For example, 2 million people live from the Alföld region, and it include 60% of the territory of Hungary. It is the most effected by the wars, and the so-called genetic overlay effect was shocking high during the history. One of the most heterogenous origin peoplation live on the Alföld, who had very weak (the veakest) link with the Hungarian speaking population of medieval Kingdom of Hungary. The other propblem that the most of the far-right leaders in Hungary were born and raised in that region since the 20th century. The majority of these people would interpret their relatively high genetic difference from the rest of other Hungarian groups as that they are less Hungarian and "less valuabe" people because of that. IT is a very sad, stupid, but very common reaction from nationalist side. However similar agressive response can emerge from the leftist-liberals, who don't care, because everybody automatically and equally Hungarian including gypsy population due to the simple IUS SOLI concept and their citizenship, and if you don't agree with it, than you are a nazi.--Free Royal City (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Your messages are always entertaining, but remember, you cannot edit WP. Borsoka (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Borsi, for you it is rather somehow frustrating topic. One of this man from muti-culti Alföld (Szeged) is Borsoka. He always became mad when he hear about genetics. Borsoka, as a human you have not lesser value because of your geographic origin. OK? Nobody attack your identity. He rather belong to the Left - Liberal type of problem of the pop. genetics question. Nobody look down on you because you were born in the Alföld. OK? Calm down Borsoka, we are living in the 21th century. WHo is Stubes? Your girlfriend?--Free Royal City (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I have always thought you are an expert of frustration, but this does not change the core of my message: you cannot edit. Borsoka (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Dear Alföldicus! Do you want to permit to edit Wikipedia? On which term?--Free Royal City (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You are the new sock of a banned user. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you here, although your comments always entertain me. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Alföldicus, you have rich fantasy.--Free Royal City (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary

I added a link to Austria-Hungary aka Austro-Hungarian Empire and it was removed. I thought it deserved at least a link; isn't that an important part of the history of Hungarians, even if it was not an entirely welcome association? Fences&Windows 01:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It's very important to note it. It seems to be part of modern Hungarian nationalism to imagine Hungary as an independent state before WWI. Of course, this is complete nonsense. The reality was that it had a high degree of autonomy within the empire (rather like modern Scotland). The emperor was quite happy to leave it alone as long as it didn't get too involved in empire-wide matters. Nigej (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Nigej, please do not insist is such observations which are completely unjustified, considering we have already discussed the issue. Btw. the the majority (of Hungarians as well) have superficial and non-expert information about this subject. The status of Hungary was not just autonomy, the the whole Monarchy was compposed by two separate states having some joint institutions, common Monarch, etc.

It's true that "the majority (of Hungarians as well) have superficial and non-expert information about this subject" which is why we need to include it. Your idea that Hungary and Austria were two independent states who just happened to have a common monarch (like the UK and Australia, say) and "having some joint institutions", is far from the truth. He was an emperor who retained great powers. We mustn't fall for the Hungarian nationalist fantasy. Nigej (talk) 13:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Nigej, again, Hungarian nationalist fantasy is something you invent here but it does not exist, and I am not intending to render a discussion we already had. If you still don't understand what independent means in this context, I am sorry (this has been as well discussed), however I spoke about being separate. Legal affairs are clear.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC))

Fences and windows, the removal had nothing to with what you assume, the demographics and ethnic composition of Hungary have not nothing to do with the fact Hungary was part of the Dual Monarchy or not, e.g. the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom is not even mentioned in those sections.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC))

RfC on what the primary topic of this article should be

People of Hungarian ethnicity and people of Hungarian nationality are both referred to by the term "Hungarians". This conflation of ethnicity and nationality is also characteristic of other ethnicities and nationalities in Europe and beyond. The implications of these conflations for the primary topic of Wikipedia articles has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#"Germans", "French people" etc - ethnicity vs nationality. This issue is also of relevance to our article on Hungarians. That leads to the question: What should be the primary topic of this article?

• People of Hungarian ethnicity
• People of Hungarian nationality (i.e. people with Hungarian citizenship)
• The term "Hungarians" itself (per WP:WORDISSUBJECT)
• There is no primary topic for the term "Hungarians"
• Something else (feel free to elaborate)

Krakkos (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Up to 2013 this article was called Hungarian people, but it was renamed to its current name in early 2014. See discussion here: Talk:Hungarians/Archive 2#title. I was not keen on the rename because it seemed to me (and still does) that in normal English usage the word "Hungarians" means people from Hungary, not people with Hungarian ethnicity. If I see a headline "1,000 Hungarians tested positive yesterday" I know what it means; it doesn't include anyone living in Slovakia. I'd be happy for this article to be moved back to Hungarian people, which I regard as a better and more precise title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigej (talk • contribs) 15:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Krakkos, I think the article's name and scope is fine, we don't have to import an unrelated issue (I don't see based on the specific article's recent issue why this RFC has been posted almost all akin articles). The term Hungarians obviously does not refer only to the people from Hungary, but covers as well all Hungarians around the world, the lead defining as "nation and ethnic group" is utterly correct.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC))

I guess you're right, KIENGIR. I have removed the RfC tag for this discussion. Krakkos (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• MagyarsOutsideHungary.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Sources on ethnicity and ethnogenesis

This.

I'm not sure considering the ongoing press towards state-controlled media produces reliable sources, and this isn't even a primary one. I would suggest deleting the relevant paragraph about asian origin.

Note that technically, all the uralic male lines are, indeed, of asian origin, but it does not necessitate Avar/Hun/Mongol/Turkic genesis, being off by some 20k+ years.

IsiKuu (talk) 08:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The wording is surely biased, in that what the article says is that modern Hungarians are basically not Asian, having little more Asian DNA than they do Neanderthal DNA. It would be interesting to know how much Asian DNA other European ethnic groups have - it says it's lower, but how much lower? Nigej (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Ethnic affiliations and genetic origins

While I haven’t read the sources, as I don’t speak Hungarian, these seem to be one of those who try to claim Hungarians as Huns ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Okay I checked the source, as I found an English version, this needs to be rewritten, the source seems to be clearly supportive of Alternative theories of Hungarian origins (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6193700/). --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 07:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing the problems with the article. Borsoka (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I do not say that you are wrong with your statements above, however you have to be very careful with this matter. There are two "schools" of genetic researcher groups in Hungary (one is in Budapest, the other one centered in Szeged), both of them are consisted of professionals, however their conclusions are many times different.. Moreover, the Hungarian linguists largely disagree with the recent statements of the "Szeged school" (e.g. "presumably the Avars spoke the Hungarian language, not the conquerors")... I attempted to collect here in this article all point of views in reference to genetic researches based on ancient and recent Hungarian populations, but I never wanted to decide which one is "mainstream" and which one belongs to the realm of alternative theories. That was the reason why this section was so confusing. You left Ery's picture in the article, I would recommend to bring back Pal Liptak's statements, his work is still cited by historians and geneticists and connected to Ery's anthropological studies.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Sources that connect Hungarians to Huns or Scythians are definately not the most common theories, however I guess other theories are allowed in Wikipedia, but that shouldn't be the main focus of the section. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Endre Neparaczky, a known genetic researcher, is an emblematic figure of the "Szeged school" and he indeed connects the early Hungarians to the Huns. Even if he is ridiculed by linguists, his conclusions are quite serious and should be mentioned in the article.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

A view that most linguists don't support, can be mentioned but it shouldn't be the main focus If you want you can add some of it again but it shouldn't be the main focus of the section, because such theories are not widely accepted. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 10:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternative meaning of Magyar

I wish to add the following alternate etymology for the word Magyar, under the section titled 'Name'. And possibly clean up that entire section.

In 2018 it was argued that Magyar literally means "strength from the womb", and is derived from the Indo-Aryan words ma/maha (mighty, strong) + dhara (womb, preserving). Taken into account for this etymology is the Hungarian Legend of the Turul. In this legend the leaders wife has a dream in which she is impregnated by a bird, and from her womb spills forth a prosperous nation. The leaders son is given the name Almos which refers to the dream. Given the importance of this dream to the early Hungarians, it is only logical that the people too would refer to this dream when referring to themselves as a nation.(ibid)

This entry was removed as being "slightly fringe". The entry cites a peer reviewed journal as its source and thus meets Wikipedia's contribution guidelines. Correct the citation references information that challenges the notion that the Finno-Ugrian languages are unrelated to other language families, but that in itself does not render it unsuitable for submission. If that was the case then this entire section would not exist.

The section currently speculates that Magyar is derived from a Hunnic word, yet the Huns spoke an Altaic language not Finno-Ugrian, and there is no evidence that the Huns even used the proposed words. This etymology definitely fits under fringe theories.

The reference to an "Old Hungarian" word "mogyër" is unreferenced and also incorrect. The old word "moger" specifically "hetumoger" is actually the Latin spelling used by Anonymous in the 13th century Gesta Hungorum. It is not "old Hungarian".

The reference to a Hungarian tribe called "Megyer" is a deliberate misquote of Edward Gibbons speculation in 1776, who himself cites Constantine VII and wrote "doubtlessly the name of a single tribe...Megere...Mazari...but without any suggestion that they are identical to with the Hungarians, whom he always called Turks".

Constantine VII recorded the name Megere as one of eight tribes. It was Markham who speculated that one name was recorded in error and that these must be the seven Hungarian tribes of Hungarian legend, the "Hetu Mogors". (ibid) Markham also misquotes Anonymous and turns "the seven persons (persone) who were called the hetumoger", into the "seven tribes".

There is no clear Finno-Ugrian root for Magyar so we must be able to discuss all valid theories and not limit the discussion to theories created in the 18th and 19th centuries when peer review and accuracy where not required. Magyar as a reference to the Turul dream is a valid theory. Archeologically it is now recognized that the Indo-Iranian and later Indo-Aryan Homeland was adjacent to the Finno-Ugrian zone, as the Andronovo culture. Thus the extent to which the Indo-Iranians and later Indo-Aryans influenced the Finno-Ugrians is a valid field of exploration, and is no longer a fringe topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7cc3:a100:70e9:8d13:524c:3248 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Ukraine, Romania

The data of Ukraine with 1 800 000 Hungarian inhabitants is incorrect, this belongs to Romania (see the footnote!). Presently Romania disappeared! It is a result of vandalism I think. The correct number in case of Ukraine is 220 000 Hungarian inhabitants.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.98.227 (talk) 01:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)