| Revision as of 09:36, 14 October 2005 editKissL (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,741 editsm archiving a bit← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:17, 10 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,091 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Talk header|search=yes}} | |||
| ==Older discussions== | |||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= | |||
| {| align="CENTER" style="width:auto; background-color:#FFFFFF; border:8px solid #008080; padding:5px;" | |||
| {{WikiProject Ethnic groups|importance=High}} | |||
| |- | |||
| {{WikiProject Hungary|importance=High}} | |||
| | <center>'''Part of this talk page has been archived.'''<br> | |||
| }} | |||
| for discussions before ]. </center> | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |} | |||
| |target=Talk:Hungarian people/Archive index | |||
| |mask=Talk:Hungarian people/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{aan}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 150K | |||
| |counter = 3 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 3 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Talk:Hungarians/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=semi|ee}} | |||
| == 1,400,000 Hungarians in Slovakia == | |||
| Is a complete fabrication, last census says 422,065.. the "cited" 2011 census was 458,065 and not 1.5 million, fix this ] (]) 20:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC) | |||
| <br clear="all" /> | |||
| == Protected edit request on 30 July 2022 == | |||
| ==Last additions== | |||
| I am sure the numbers added are very disputable; the Magyars outside "the Basin" are missing; what exactly is the "Basin"; why should the percentage in "the Basin" be decisive etc etc. If you really feel that this paragraph must be added, then cite the source at least...] 01:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Recently there are many vandalism by Slovakian anonym IPs. | |||
| Not quite. | |||
| *Fact #1: Magyars number in 1910 was 10.1, and 11.4 million in 2000 | |||
| *Fact #2: Romanians, Croats, Slovenians have doubled, Slovaks, Serbs tripled theirs number. | |||
| *Fact #3: 100-200% population growth for non Magyars and only 15% for Magyars in the last century | |||
| *Fact #4: The population of Carpathian Basin today is around 33-34 million, 33-34% is still Hungarian | |||
| *Fact #5: It is not decisive but comparable | |||
| *Fact #6: Hungarian diaspora in the World is around 1.5-2 million | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/46.34.234.18 | |||
| '''(2005.09.10)''' | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hungarians&diff=1101311283&oldid=1101309253 | |||
| Again, cite your source (I am quite sure you have used some nationalist text) because these are quite important numbers, secondly taking the 1910 census as a basis is wrong (the number of Magyars was highly overstated), thirdly there are Magyars outside the "Basin" now, fourthly I still did not see the exact definition of "the Basin" (just the plain or what?), fifthly the neighbouring countries are not the cause of the high suicide rate and low birth rate in the country Hungary which is the main factor in this "problem", sixtly - ignoring what I have said above - if you are going to compare who "doubled/tripled" (numbers that always depend on what you take as a basis) then you should also show who tripled/doubled etc. before 1910 according to official Hungarian numbers in a clearly defined country called Kingdom of Hungary without any wars, border changes or other special circumstances (as compared to WWI etc.)...If I hadn't more important things to do now, I would look at those figures myself, maybe I will do that one day...] 16:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hungarians&diff=prev&oldid=1101305099 <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| '''(2005.09.11)''' | |||
| * I am not in the habit of using nationalist texts. No need for citation. They could be checked very easy. | |||
| **If you do not have such a habit, then it will be no problem for you to cite your source. I am CALLING ON YOU for the third time now to cite your source, because you obviously do not carry such numbers in your head with you all the time (and if you say you do, then - you must admit - that's rather suspicious). As a remark: I have found a source saying that the number of Magyars at the time of the conquest was only 100,000 - 150,000 (you say up to 400,000): You see how important it is to cite the source in such cases. In fact, you can take virtually any number and you always find a source confirming it. | |||
| ***Well, here you are. I thought you dispute the 1900s datas. | |||
| ****Gesta Hungarorum gives the number of the Magyar clans at 108, and each of them could produce 2,000 armed men (seems quite dubious: 200,000 armed men = x 5 Magyar people = 1,000,000) | |||
| ***** Using Gesta hungarorum for this is absolutely ridiculous, by the way... | |||
| ****Others, like Constantine, the Purple-born, wrote about some 50-60,000 warriors, which means x5 = 300,000 Magyars | |||
| ****There is a mutual understanding between Hungarian scholars accorind Magyars population. In their view around 350-5,000 Magyars entered the Carpathian Basin, in autumn 896--] 07:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***No, this is a misunderstanding. I have mentioned the number only to show that there are various sources for population numbers. The difference will be lower, however, for the 20th century, of course. So, as you correctly assume, I want to see your source for the 1900s data...By the way, I do not "dispute" anything, I just want to see the source...] 20:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Why do the most Slavic ethnic groups have a higher frequency odf Asian ancestry than modern Hungarians? == | |||
| * OK, suppose was highly overstated ... but we are talking about absolute values. In 1910 10-11 million Magyars lived (according to Hungarian sources) in the CB and likewise 10-11 million Romanians in Transylvania, historical Moldova and Wallachia - verify this from authentic romanian sources if you want (HELP). Today these numbers are: 11 million Magyars and 22 million Romanians (~19 in Romania + 3 in the Republic of Moldova) | |||
| See the frequency of Haplogroup Q and haplogroup N: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml | |||
| --] (]) 19:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
| * Carphatian Basin definition given by C.A. Macartney: " The parts of it seem, indeed, designed by nature to form one harmonious whole. Through the heart of it the great river itself runs a course of nearly 600 miles, most of it through flat or flattish lands which form an oval plain, about 100,000 square miles in extent, 400 miles at its greatest width from west to east, 300 from north to south. This plain is surrounded by a ring of mountains, whose valleys converge on the central plain; of the rivers of Historic Hungary, only one flows north, to join the Vistula; one, like the Danube itself, cuts its own way through the Transylvanian Alps; all the rest join the Danube on its central course. The mountains, which in the north and east form an almost continuous wall, rarely broken, with the dense forests which up to recent times covered their slopes, form a natural defence for the plain, especially towards the east. The products of plain and mountain are mutually cornplementary, linking their inhabitants in a natural community of destiny." | |||
| **OK...well, and now I would like to see a reliable source that is able to count the historic numbers of Magyars or of anybody on the territory defined in the above way (and there are 100 other definitions of the Carp. Basin of course)...Even if the source was able to do so, it was certainly not written by C.A. Macartney, was it?... I mean this is probably a joke...Probably you do not mean the Carpathian Basin, you mean the former territory of the Kingdom of Hungary (why don't you write that then??)...The point is that a source using such terminology as "the Basin" for (would-be) precise population numbers is rather suspicious and cannot be quite normal...] 02:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ***So, then use Central Europe or Eastern Europe, or the teritory of the former Hunarian Kingdom or any other term you want. | |||
| ***What I WANT???????? But you have used the term in the text as a basic concept and used it as a basis for percentage numbers and for "everything! !!!...It is a difference from what territory you compute a percentage number or any number or are you going to deny basic mathematics? Is this how numbers are treated in Hungary nowadays or what??I suppose not...Another good reason to see the source...] 20:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *(HELP) I'm very interesting if there exists a Romanian population estimation in the Carpato-Danubiao-Pontic region for the last 1500-2000 year?--] 07:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| **Since Romania has demographers, there must be such estimates. I do not have them right now...You must ask a Romanian user...] 02:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| '''(2005.09.14)''' | |||
| *Unfortunatelly I cannot give you sources in english. Maybe you can try this instead. or | |||
| According to this I claim that 10.065 million Magyars and 10.093 million Romanians lived in Central Europe in the early XX. century. These numbers rose to 22.045 million Romanians and 13.239 million Magyars until 1977-1980! | |||
| (1) And what about the remaining numbers? | |||
| * What other numbers? | |||
| **OK. I see that you have no source, you just took several internet pages you liked (nobody knows whether they are compatible) and made your own conclusions. But that (namely original "research") is actually prohibited in the wikipedia. Ad What numbers? I have lost the overview as to what numbers are from which user, but you have added a lot of numbers about Magyars in Central Europe (haven't you?) and the above numbers are about Romania, so what about the rest?? | |||
| (2) You must have a "normal" source, like a book, study, statistical tables...(I understand Hungarian, if that's the problem...) | |||
| * Splenind! I gave you two links in Hungarian. did you read it? | |||
| **See above. | |||
| (3) And, as you can see you used the expression "Central Europe", so it's not the "Basin" anymore???] 11:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * The difference is negligable - demographically - for Hungarians: BASIN + ~100,000 Magyars = Central Europe. Of course this formula is not aplicable for Romanians. For them use Central Europe - 17,000,000 = BASIN instead. ;)--] 14:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| *Again, I am not sure whether we still have that sentence, but you originally wrote that Magyars made up XY% of the Basin population...Here anything related to the "Basin" is not negligible, of course...] 20:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| '''(2005.09.16)''' | |||
| You've right. The original research is prohibited, but the calculation is not. | |||
| OK, I accept mabe I'm wrong in some exact numbers. The Magyars number was not 10.065, but 10.199 million, in 1910. Therefore I've used 10-11 million instead. Similarly You have the choice to make your own research and if you find completelty different numbers please inform us. | |||
| And that two link I gave you is nothing else than a digitized form of a recently published book in Hungary about nations in Central(Köztes) Europe between 175X - 1980(?). Given an overall picture about what Hungarian historians think about recent past of the region. | |||
| The "Basin" question: if you make a comparasion between Romanians and Magyars it is negligable wheter Croatia/Slovenia/Burgenland is included into the Basin or not. Romanians percentage compared to Magyars percentage will not change ... somewhat decrease from 54% respectivelly 15% to 54-c and 15-c--] 07:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * It has clicked for me: here is the link about Magyars percentage in 1941 (only mangled Hungary): | |||
| == Depression == | |||
| It was me who added the mention to depression. Naturally, no link can be established between the various historical events and the depression among Magyars, but was ''" all '''contributed to''' a general feeling of depression"'' (emphasis added). I don't think this is so wild a speculation, though it can probably be fine-tuned. That the percentage of depressed people is unusually high among Magyars, in turn, is pretty much of an established fact; I can't cite anything off the top of my head, but I remember having seen studies showing this, of which the high number of suicides is but a well-measurable effect. I suppose that this has more to do with the people in Hungary than with Magyars in general, but as to the demographic consequences, the two are more and more correlated. Which brings me to the point of mentioning this at all: it was not to say that the number of Magyars is anyhow "too low", but simply to provide some context for the demographic estimate of 2050, a quite low but still correct one for a group today numbering over 11 million. It is, of course, more of a speculation that the low number of births is (at least partly) due to depression, though I wouldn't be surprised to see that someone has already established that link. | |||
| As for Magyarisation, I still maintain that the words I removed are superfluous and have no other effect than being less concise, but I can live with the current version (with "largely" added, so "solely" not implied). | |||
| ]] 09:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I can only repeat that you cannot be serious if you think that Trianon or WWII has something to do with the current and future demographic development (until 2050?????!) in Hungary...It could have had (but it had not, of course) something to do with the general demographic development in the interwar period and in the 50s/60s, but the demographice development started just AFTER these periods (the population of Hungary started to decrease only around 1980 and decreased by more than 1 million (!!) persons until 2003)...How can you even contemplate such totally illogical things in obvious contradiction with reality??? If we start to write such non-sense here then you can really write anything that comes to your mind, that will yield the same in the end...] 02:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| You're not getting my point. I'm not contemplating a direct connection between Trianon and the demographic development. What I am assuming is that Trianon is ''one of'' the reasons behind depression, and that depression is ''one of'' the reasons behind the demographic development in Hungary. Both assumptions are common sense. I didn't force any direct connection between Trianon and demographics into the article. | |||
| And as for when that development started - there has been an absolutely '''constant''' decrease in the number of children per possible parents '''since before WWII'''. In particular, the population decrease that started in the 1980s had been on schedule for at least two decades, because already in the 1960s the fertility rate dropped low enough so that there were less children than possible parents '''despite''' the so-called "Ratkó era", which (precisely in the 1960s when this trend first alarmed the political elite) saw numerous efforts to increase the willingness of the population to have children, and did in fact produce an outstanding (but still insufficient) "wave" of childbirth for a few years. | |||
| There is more to demographics than increase or decrease in a population - there are lots of dependencies on age structure, because death rates are more or less determined by the number of aged people, while birth rates are determined by both the number of reproductive women and a set of socioeconomical constraints. So to state that the current development started around 1980 would be a huge mistake. | |||
| In view of this, what are the "totally illogical" things I am contemplating "in obvious contradiction with reality?" | |||
| ]] 09:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| These are well-known things, the problem is I am not criticising the statement that someone was allegedly depressed, I am criticising the whole part of the text, which MAKES the above connection. And I repeat this for the 5th time already that the text | |||
| :-was saying after you have edited it (as you claim above) | |||
| :-and partly it is still saying | |||
| exactly what I am saying above (meaning it is still illogical), because even if we assumed that there was a demographic change IN HUNGARY say right at the time of Trianon or right in 1945, it then still continues and intesifies and is similar to developments in other countries, which itself shows that it has nothing to do with Trianon etc. and every demographer knows it. Finally, actually I am not interested in what you or anybody personally thinks, wanted to write (but did not) or things like that, I am only interested in having a text here that at least does not contain lies (wanted or not) -given that the article is far from ideal anyway- and that's what I am talking about here all the time. But Zello said above he would write a more precise text, so let'see (hopefully)... Ah yes, I mentioned the above decrease only to show what a difference it is whether one looks at numbers say of 1910-1970 or at numbers of 1910-2003 - and what is the (huge) difference, i.e. the "problem"? Answer: The internal development in Hungary. But what does the text imply? The problem of the TOTAL number of Magyars in an undefined "Basin" (including Hungary) lies abroad and in WWI and WWII. This is what the text says now, I do not know how to explain it in simpler terms. ] 20:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I wrote the new section about demographics. All of my data came from Ignác Romsics's new book (History of Hungary in the 20th century). Sorry KissL but I deleted the expression "depression". However I think the last paragraph (from Fz222) needs a little upgrading (datas etc) in any case and there you can find a place for this thought. ] 00:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Where are the new numbers from? I don't think that Romsics made mistakes in such an important question... ] 09:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I reverted the sentence because of two reasons: | |||
| * The new numbers were dubious, and I mentioned a good, widely recognised source for my datas, so I don't see any reason not to stick to the former version. | |||
| * I think it important to indicate the major population losses of the 20th century. After all 0,5-1 million people maters something - even in a demographic point of view. ] 20:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I do not agree with you (see above /Last changes/) | |||
| The population of Hungary was 7.9 out of which 7.1 million were Magyars in 1910 (the article is about Magyars not Germans, Jewish, Romas etc) | |||
| 'til 1941 this number rose to ~8,500,000 in Hungary plus 2.5 - 3,000,000 million in neighbouring countries | |||
| and to 10,500,000 in Hungary + 2,500,000 million in n.c. in 1980.--] 07:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I think it is not good idea to exclude nationalities from population estimates because they were part of the Hungarian nation. But yes, in this sense you are right, I looked up the numbers in the Romsics book: | |||
| * 1920 7,9 million - Magyar 7,1 million | |||
| * 1941 9,3 million - Magyar 8,6 million | |||
| * 1980 10,7 million - Magyar 10,4 million (officially) - 9,8 million with estimated 800 000 Gypsy | |||
| We should decide wether we use these numbers or we speak about the total population of Hungary. Kissl, Juro? | |||
| * As for the other: the victims and emigrants of the 20th century were mostly Magyars in all sense. Hungarian soldiers at the Don, emigrants after 1956 etc. Jews were always counted before as Magyars so its not fair to exclude them at this point (were they "good" in the census of 1910?). ] 11:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| * Yes, that's true, but we are talking here about the 1100 year old Magyars people and not about political nation of Hungary. In the retrospect of 1100 year of Magyar history the appearance of Magyarized Jewish people after 1850 (around 70,000) and their dramatic dissapearance in 1944 (they numbered around 800,000 in 1910) was a chapter although very tragic chapter of Hungary and not Magyars history. Demograpically speaking of course. Similarly the Germans. They were never counted as Magyars ...--] 12:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| 1100 year old Magyar people almost doesn't exist in genetical terms. You won't find anybody in the country whose all ancestor came here with Árpád. Magyars absorbed an immense number of other peoples in their history, and Jews were one of them. As I said before 1944 they were counted as Magyars in every census... But I won't fight for this question, this topic is too heated now. | |||
| * No need for fighting. Take a look over this: --] 12:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| It makes no sense to speak Magyars as a whole after Trianon. Of course this is one nation, but the demographic process were not the same in Hungary and in the neighbouring countries. | |||
| ] 12:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Of course not. Assimilation and emmigration was typical of minority Magyars. But the negative population growth rate affects the whole Central Europe with minor differences. (1990 for Romanians / but 1977-1980 for Magyars in Transylvania / 1980 for Magyars in Hungary) --] 12:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| OK. I can only say that I largely agree with Zello. The current version is quite in order, provided the numbers are correct (I wished I had the time and mood to check them...). Maybe it would be really helpful to also point out the development of other nationalities in Hungary to show that these numbers are tied to Hungary as a country, but on the other hand this article is called "Magyars", so I don't know...] 22:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Fast, slow, what? == | |||
| I don't understand this new sentence from the anonymous contributor. What's this? ] 15:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I deleted these chart with obviously incorrect data: there isn't any country like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia today, there isn't 200 000 Magyars in Russia (probably it was a mistake for Ukraine) and I think it's not a good idea to make such estimations about Magyars in the US or Canada where assimilation is very fast. ] 08:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not kidding, you must update your chart because it's out of date and incorrect. ] 20:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Good job on updating my estimates. I had my total estimation pretty close though. Anyway, do you like the image or would you want me to make a new one? .. | |||
| For me it's OK. But if you make longer contributions, register a user name because man sees anonymous editors with mistrust. ] 19:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Theories about the origin of Magyars== | |||
| It is a debated issue, but to give a complete picture I think it is worth adding Alinei and Krantz, since their work is peer-reviewed scholarly work, and it is not likely that they have a pro-Hungarian nationalist bias. {{unsigned|129.27.161.101| 16:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)}} | |||
| There is a page about ] where you should mention this kind of speculations. But THIS page about the Magyars contains only facts and widely accepted scientific theories. ] 21:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Facts in history? Sorry, but in that subject everything is more or less speculation, in particular if it happened thousand or thousands of years ago. The problem with the Hungarian Pre-History page is that it seems to be the page of a single person's opinion, moreover it includes non peer-reviewed and unscientific speculation. Thus Alinei and Krantz do not belong there. {{unsigned|129.27.161.101|10:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)}} | |||
| To 129.27.161.101 - Read ] and you'll see that this doesn't belong here. Besides, think about all the non-experts who will click on a link saying ] somewhere. This sure is not the kind of info they will want to know. (BTW you can, and ], sign your posts using four tildes, like this: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>.) ]] 10:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| I think it would be useful to develop ] page a place where every "alternative" theory about the origin of the Magyars is collected and reviewed. Of course everything about the ancient period is more or less speculation but here it's better to stick to the "official" thesis. ] 11:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Dear KissL | |||
| Forgive my harsh judgment, but I think your reasoning is somewhat flawed. The work of Krantz and Alinei are not original research in the sense it is described in WP:NOR. Alinei is an established linguist whose celebrated continuity theory is considered fundamental. The late Krantz was an established anthropologist, who was considered an expert on human evolution, and while his "bigfoot" material received much media attention (due to its sensational nature), his expertise in his own field was never questioned, not to mention that even in the bigfoot case (not entirely his field) he was never disproven. Furthermore the article gives space to the Sumerian theory (which sounds like it may be original research) without citation, whereas I have given Krantz's book and Alinei's as the citation. The non-experts should be aware that there is a debate, and I think as long as it is only mentioned but the main emphasis is not placed on them it is not in any way misleading. More misleading is to place Sumerian and other theories without citation, dismiss them also without citation and exclude the theories (even if somewhat marginal) which were proposed by respected experts in various fields. Your claim about redundance is somewhat questionable as well... | |||
| It is also notable the Alinei is often referred to by Slavic historians since his continuity theory refutes the notion of Slavic presence in Europe only agter the 6th century. While Alinei is not cited on the page describing Slavic peoples it appears that it is his theories that are presented there, so there is really no reason to exclude them from here either. But I guess the idea is that Slavs are OK, Magyars should be excluded whenever possible. It would be great if Eastern Europe grew up! | |||
| Thank you for the suggestion regarding the signature. I do not have an account yet... | |||
| Dear Zello, | |||
| There is a problem with alternative theories mixed with alternative theories. While I do not want to exclude work not necessarily ratified by the experts, but there may be reasons for not grouping together something like Alinei or Krantz with the work of fringe nationalists. | |||
| Februus] 11:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
| For me both theories seems to be wild enough and none of them is new. Etruscan-Hungarian relationship was a popular idea in the 2 half of the 19 century. There are a lot of authors who propagates that Magyars inhabited the Carpathian Basin even in the Stone Age. It's interesting that there are non-Hungarian followers of this speculation but this is simply out of the normal scholarly discussion. ] 14:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:17, 10 July 2024
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hungarians article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
1,400,000 Hungarians in Slovakia
Is a complete fabrication, last census says 422,065.. the "cited" 2011 census was 458,065 and not 1.5 million, fix this 178.41.220.144 (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 30 July 2022
Recently there are many vandalism by Slovakian anonym IPs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/46.34.234.18 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hungarians&diff=1101311283&oldid=1101309253 https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hungarians&diff=prev&oldid=1101305099 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod (talk • contribs) 11:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Why do the most Slavic ethnic groups have a higher frequency odf Asian ancestry than modern Hungarians?
See the frequency of Haplogroup Q and haplogroup N: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml --Pharaph (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Categories: