Talk:Magyaron

Wailor

What is the exact meaning of wailor?(KIENGIR (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC))

Incomprehensible

I'm assuming the article is an automated translation of a Ukrainian article. For example: "usually referred to clergy and intelligentsia"? Is this "usually referred to by the clergy and intelligentsia" or is it "usually referred to the clergy and intelligentsia". "renounced its own language"? Which language: Hungarian or Ukrainian, it is not clear to me. "promotes Magyarization of Ukrainian population"? Is this the entire Ukrainian population (which seems unlikely - in a contemporary sense) or specific groups or areas. "The term "Magyaron" and "Magyaronian" originated in the 19th century — the first half of the 20th century in Ruthenian environments, meant national treason and was used to denote smeared ones Ruthenian." Honestly the whole article is incomprehensible. Either it needs a massive improvement (so that it can be assessed) or it should be removed. Is the term in current use in Ukraine or was it a term than has now died out? Nigej (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Fully agree..having the same questions as you, never heard of even the term...(KIENGIR (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC))

I believe that this article should be deleted

The word Magyaron does not even exist in the English language, or at least I could not find it with a Google search. If so, should this English language article not be deleted? (I am not anti-Hungarian at all, and was born in Budapest. I'm sure the article is useful in the Hungarian Wikipedia, but not here.) Peter K Burian (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is still Incomprehensible, perhaps even worse than earlier. For instance, back in October it had: "The famous Transcarpathian wailor Alexander Dukhnovich wrote: For them (Magyars) all peoples - a cattle, cattle, only one Madyar was a man, "who is not Magyar, that and not a man"" Now changed to: "The famous Transcarpathian Magyaron Alexander Dukhnovich wrote: For them (Magyars), all people are sheeple, the unwashed, only one Magyar [nation] were [civilized] people, "he who is not Magyar, not a man"". "wailor" has gone but we now have "sheeple". It's utter gibberish. Nigej (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree with both of you...(KIENGIR (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC))

: See [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] ... Of course, the article can be improved. Ditinili (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how we could ever get a consensus, since there have been so few editors working on this article (aside from the person who first published it). I have asked for Help from Admin in reviewing it .... only because the term Mgyarok does not seems to exist in English (or even in Hungarian). I cannot comment on the "propaganda" or "gibberish" aspects mentioned above and those may not be relevant if the article should not be in the English language Wikipedia in any event.

Granted, some of the sources cited by Ditinili are in English... as is this one that I just now found (relating to Slovaks, not Hungarians) in Google Books: https://books.google.ca/books?id=YYjTmnd_gpwC&pg=PA41&dq=%22magyaron%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAvtvo1evfAhWzoIMKHdYxB6YQ6AEIMjAB#v=onepage&q=%22magyaron%22&f=false ... AND this one: https://books.google.ca/books?id=-L4qAQAAMAAJ&q=magyaron+influence&dq=magyaron+influence&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3oN3V1uvfAhUq6oMKHT-0B9cQ6AEIOzAC

hmmm... Well, let's see what an Admin says. Delete? Major edit? Peter K Burian (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The trouble is that the article is so incomprehensible that it's difficult even to make a start at editing it. "the disparaged name of the Transcarpathian ethno-cultural group, usually referred to clergy and intelligentsia,[1] which has a candid Hungarian orientation, renounced its own language, culture, religion, promotes Magyarization of Ukrainian population. The Magyarons consider Ukrainians of Carpathian Ruthenia separate «Rusyns» nation[2] and in 1918–1940th years defended the idea of joining Subcarpathian Rus [uk] to Hungary. The children of Magyarons have already considered themselves Magyar, not Ukrainians. Thus, children of madyaron Kurtyak Ivan Fedorovich [uk] were educated in the Hungarian spirit, belonged to the Magyar chauvinistic youth organization «Levente» and considered themselves Hungarians.[3]". The lead is meant to be a simple introduction to the topic. This is gibberish. Surely as a minimum we need a lead that someone can understand - see comments I made in October. Nigej (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ref 5 above does say "Magyaron was a (derogatory) nickname given by the bellicose Volksdeutsche to a fellow German who sided with the Magyars." which is at least understandable if you know what Volksdeutsche and Magyars mean. Nigej (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Example (Slovak Magyarons): "Magyaron: a term with strong negative connotations for those ethnic Slovaks who have accepted Hungarian language and culture at the expense of their own Slovak heritage."[13] That's a nice definition.--Ditinili (talk)

A couple of commas would held: "Magyaron: a term, with strong negative connotations, for those ethnic Slovaks who have accepted Hungarian language and culture at the expense of their own Slovak heritage." A sentence I can understand. "at the expense of their own Slovak heritage" is rather POV, "sided with" less so. However, the lead doesn't mention Slovaks, concentrating on Ukrainians. Nigej (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course, because it has been translated from UA wikipedia.--Ditinili (talk) 22:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Can't the Ukrainian wikipedia mention slovaks too? If the Ukrainian version just concentrates on the Ukrainian aspects of a more widely-used term it seems an inappropriate version to use here (even if translated into something that resembles English). Seems to me in the short term, we can either delete the whole thing or perhaps replace it with a simple definition, letting it be expanded. Editing the current version is just impossible. I still want to know whether the term is in current use or not. Nigej (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

It's a more widely used term. I agree, we can replace it with a simple definition + "see also Magyarization". --Ditinili (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the answer I got from an Administrator. Does anyone know how to do this?

 Then nominate for deletion. See 
  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Nominating_article(s)_for_deletion - easier to set up, if you have Twinkle enabled (in your preferences) and use the "xfd" link at the top of the page.  

Peter K Burian (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Not too difficult. I could do it myself but I'm not convinced that it should be deleted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so the fact that Magyaron is not an English word (it usually seems to appear in italics or similar - implying its a foreign word) does not, of itself, disqualify it from having an article. We even have a category Category:Pejorative terms for people (subcat Category:Ethnic and religious slurs). My own preference (at the moment) is to keep it, delete all the current content and replace it with a simple definition (still not 100% clear what that is) and then see if it gets expanded with some sensible content. As long as the article makes it clear that it was/is (still not sure) a derogatory term and we use a neutral WP:POV style, I don't see any particular problem. Even terms like "at the expense of their own Slovak heritage" tend to give the impression that is was a "bad" thing rather than a "good" thing, so we need to careful with the wording in articles like this. Nigej (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I have to repeat here that so long the article and it's author promote the Ukrainain POV that regardless what Hungarians or Rusyns consider it is a "Magyarization of Ukrainian population", than we have to nothing to speak about and it is useless to grant any seriosity to this article - to say nothing of until in the further reading materials and extremist content from propaganda sites are cited that deals with the current Hungarian-Ukranian disagreements and describes various methods and charges, how to intimidate and fight against Hungarians - (current views and disputes back in time between Rusys and Ukrainians should not be reflected here in an anachronistic manner, regardless of any "Ukrainist" movement). It can be shortly mentioned how today Ukrainians regard Rusyns or vica versa, but the subject were Rusyns, not Ukrainians! To say nothing of the term "Magyaron" is completely unknown for Hungarians, surely 99,9999%.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC))

It seems that the term Magyaron is used in EN sources (the equivalent of Slovak: Maďarón, Czech: Maďarón, Polish: Madziaron, Ukrainian: Мадяро́н [Madjarón], Croatian: Mađaron, etc). I have found also the form Magyarone (i.e. Ward J.M.: Priest, Politician, Collaborator: Jozef Tiso and the Making of Fascist Slovakia [14], used also by HU authors i.e. Vassady Bela: Mixed Ethnix Identities Among Immigrant Clergy from Mutiethnic Hungary: The Slovak-Magyar Case 1885-1903 in The Ethnic Enigma: The Salience of Ethnicity for European-origin Groups [15]. "This term first came into common usage in Hungary during the 1840s when a Croatian political faction supporting the use of Magyar as the official language in Croatia was labeled the "Magyarone party"[16].--Ditinili (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

It is used in English language sources but its clear that it is regarded as a foreign word/name - in this case it is enclosed in quotes. Not sure of your point, really. Nigej (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

In this case it is enclosed in quotes, because the official name was Croatian-Hungarian Party (Hrvatsko-vugerska stranka - Hrvatsko: Croatian (adj.), vugarska: Hungarian (adj.), stranka: party) . "Magyarone Party" is a nickname. Magyaron - obviously from Magyar, the EN loanword from the HU language (it seems that the word Magyaron does not exist in HU language and SK, CZ, HR, PL and UA forms are different) Ditinili (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I suppose it makes sense that the "Magyarone party" wouldn't have used an derogatory term for themselves. Presumably the insulting term was used by their opponents. We've established that it's used in English language sources but I'm not sure where we're going here. Any suggestions about the article, since that the point of the exercise. Nigej (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest:

- remove the current text

- add a short explantation, something like "a Magyarized member of non-Hungarian nation or a pro-Hungarian person" + the pejorative meaning : "a Magyarized person who works against his nation, a treator"

- add a short info about the origin of the term

- maybe some notable examples? I am not sure.

- see also Magyarization --Ditinili (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I checked, "Magyarone" as well unknown unused for Hungarians completely, even if once one Hungarian author referred or descibed it (the source is in an English environment, so it is questionable), this word and form does not fit into the Hungarian language, there is no equivalent. To your suggestion two or three times more modification would be needed, since those problems Nigej referred are almost occuring in every sentence, with horrible mistakes via google translator, to say nothing of the bias of the source where it was taken from...(KIENGIR (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC))

Yes, the article is very biased as well as being almost unintelligible. It is clear that most of it needs to go, just a bare definition will suffice. If the term Magyaron is a derogatory nickname then we shouldn't be having sentences like "The Magyarons did this ...", we should be using the real name for them in the appropriate place, not in this article. If we had an article which said "The Niggers did this ..." it would be very clear to an English speaker that it was inappropriate and this article seems to be similar. Nigej (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Copy Edit request

Hello,

I'm a member of the Copy Editors Guild. I picked up this article in our March 2019 drive (we have monthly cleanup drives.) In reading through this article and it's talk page, I'm concerned about the same things mentioned here as well as the fact that I can find no English sources within the article, or on the web.

Because I cannot verify the historical accuracy of the article, what I am doing is removing unsourced claims, grammatically incorrect language, rewriting claims to make (hopefully) more sense, and anything else I can find to make this article less problematic.

I'll swing back here with updates before I leave. I will also likely tag this article with an 'expert needed' template.

Thanks, Curdigirl (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok. So I was BOLD and here's what I did: 1. As promised, I removed unsourced claims or marked them as citation needed.

2. I removed claims which were sourced only by blog posts (there were several such claims). The fact that the blog posts were also not in English is a secondary, but not primary reason to remove the claims. Blog posts are not reliable sources and so should not be used in citations on Wikipedia.

3. If the claim has a source that appears to be a book, or other type of source that I can't immediately rule out as being non-legitimate, then I've marked it as "better source needed." There is at least one claim like this, which references something called "Territory Terror Memorial Museum of Totalitarian Regimes," which seems to be some kind of museum. The site is not in English, I used Google translate to figure out what it was.

4. I rewrote awkward sentences. In some cases, since no English source is available to follow up on the written claim, it was unclear how much my change may have altered the meaning of the sentence.

5. I removed peacock terms and weasel words.

Overall, these are my concerns and observations:

1. I feel satisfied with the general copy editing here; the article is much cleaner, without glaring grammatical or punctuation errors.

2. There are no English sources for this article which is concerning for a few reasons. First, because without expert level knowledge, any sources that can't be translated or sourced online can't be verified as legitimate. Without being able to tell whether the sources are legitimate, it's hard to know which claims are factual, which is one of the problems with this article in general.

Here's what I am doing:

1. Removing the copy edit tag as part of the GCE drive for March 2019 because I believe I fulfilled the requirements. 2. Removing the neutrality tag. The factual issues are interrelated but also distinct. I rewrote some claims to make them sound less weasel-wordy...however I can't verify whether they are true or not without better sources. 3. Adding an 'expert needed' tag

GCE reviewer - I stopped short of nominating this article for deletion although I am in favor of that proposal. Thanks and please let me know if you have any questions. Curdigirl (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits, they were severely needed. On your path, will do also some corrections and rephrases, since the article is still in a horrible condition...(KIENGIR (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC))