Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 20:03, 11 January 2025

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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:

Ethnic groups High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Hungary High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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: You must be logged-in to an autoconfirmed or confirmed account (usually granted automatically to accounts with 10 edits and an age of 4 days) 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.

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)

Current "Origins" section reflects specific Hungarian nationalist POV and cites heavily biased source.

The current version of the "Origins" section of this article reflects the opinion of a specific branch of Hungarian nationalism that seeks to deny and obfuscate the well-established Ugric origins of Hungarians in favor of promoting stronger ethnolinguistic links with more prestigious Turkic/Mongolic/far eastern ethnic groups, often based on fabricated or distorted data.

"The relatedness of Hungarians with the Ugric peoples is almost exclusively founded on linguistic data and has been called into question. It is not backed with testimonies in historical sources or the results of natural science research." - the cited source behind this passage is a study written Borbála Obrusánszky and Angela Marcantonio. Obrusánszky is a well-known figure within Hungarian far-right, Turanist circles and is academically primarily known for strongly pushing the personal POV that Hungarians possess Mongolian cultural links/origins, she is strongly associated with the ethno-nationalist bi-yearly event called Kurultáj and its nationalist parent foundation, the Magyar Turán Alapítvány, and used to further closely associate herself with the far-right party Jobbik, which used to be under the leadership of Gábor Vona. Obrusánszky is currently the Hungarian ambassador in Mongolia thanks to her personal connections to a high-ranking member of Viktor Orbán's cabinet.

That the "(Uralic origin of Hungarians) is not backed with testimonies in historical sources or the results of natural science research" is an oft-repeated sentiment by Obrusánszky and similar Turanist historians who used to exploit the scarcity of genetic data and lack of studies that set out to directly compare the Magyar conqueror population and Ob-Ugrians by attempting to claim that the lack of genetic data is sufficient counter-evidence against the well-established linguistic evidence for the Uralic ethnolinguistic origins of Hungarians, we now know that this is untrue, as this 2019 study which directly compares Magyar conqueror samples with contemporary Ob-Ugrian ones has uncovered a direct genetic link between the two populations: https://edit.elte.hu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10831/50896/Y-chromosomal%20connection%20between%20Hungarians%20and%20geographically%20distant%20populations%20of%20the%20Ural%20Mountain%20region%20and%20West%20Siberia.pdf?sequence=1 . This data is supported and cited by several other studies, some of which are cited further down in this article.

The very specific invocation of "natural science research" (rather than "genetic research", or "archeogenetics") in the context of the original text and broader Hungarian pseudohistory reflects a common Hungarian pseudo-historian rhetorical tactic/device, it's meant to prime the reader to dismiss the conclusions and methods of linguistics by presenting the conclusions of the "soft" sciences (such as linguistics) as being more or less based on empty fantasizing and not as compelling and rigorous as that of "hard" sciences, so that whatever conclusions they end up drawing from their distorted and/or false genetic data they can claim it's sufficient to completely displace the linguistic data because it's (their own arbitrary, nationalist narrative) evidence based on "natural/hard science". 91.137.177.37 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

For a confirmation that Marcantonio does not represent mainstream Uralic linguistics, see Uralic languages#Uralic skepticism. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I have long been considered about pan-Turanism on Misplaced Pages, however, at least some of the sources do appear to be reliable without any further investigation (with the last one published by Cambridge University Press, for instance). I'd suggest the problem is probably a matter of WP:WEIGHT- the mainstream perspective of Uralic origins has been completely shut out of the article, at least in the first subsection. Perhaps my colleagues Austronesier and Andrew Lancaster would be able to weigh in/help - I'm a bit too busy to look into the problem myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The last source, Berend 2013 (archive.org) is indeed a good one. The problem here seems to be that the first paragraph argues against the linguistic theory, and this is then supported by a reference to Berend, taken out of context. She actually argues against all theories in which Hungarian ethnicity exists centuries before the Conquest. The situation would be better if the first paragraph introduced the whole migration narrative, not just linguistics, and the second paragraph criticized it. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Some section's of the article need to be better summarized because are too detailed without clear point, which is already explained in detail in other articles dealing with specific topic. As for the raised issue by the IP, the Hungarian conquerors undoubtedly were a mixture of Turkic and Ugric people. They certainly weren't mainly of one or the other origin, so claiming that one part of the ancestry is "well-established" meanwhile the other is "fabricated" is violation of factual reality and WP:NPOV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, the current introduction as if this were a case of 100% Uralic vs. 0% Uralic looks extremely amateurish and appears to be rooted in 19th century ideologies of ethnic monogenesis and the use of linguistic classifications as ethnic markers. The Magyar conquerors obviously had a complex ethnogenesis that is reflected in the occurrence of a Turkic lexical stratum in an unequivocally Uralic language (let's quickly forget about Marcantonio, for good scholarship's sake), paired with the adapdation to a steppe lifestyle that was alien to other Uralic-speaking groups. The scarce evidence from ancient DNA (which has to be used with care since most recent aDNA studies are overly focussed on elite burials, and partially overrely on Y-DNA instead of the autosomal genome) also points to a complex origin of the Magyar conquerors which definitely includes ancestry components associated with Uralic-speaking peoples. To say that the relatedness of Hungarians with the Ugric peoples is not backed with the results of natural science research is complete bollocks. But it is equally poor to reduce Hungarian origins to linguistic affiliation only, as happened before in the pre-rewrite version of the Origins section. –Austronesier (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Common ancestry and history

@Are2The2: could you refer to reliable sources stating that all Hungarians share a common ancestry and history? For instance, why do you think that Lajos Kossuth, Béla Bartók, Leó Szilárd are not Hungarians? Their common ancestry (especially one traceable to the conquering Magyar tribes) could hardly be proven taking into account their Slovak, Croatian or Jewish background. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi Borsoka,

I noticed a while ago that new user Are2The2 is really obsessed to force put with edit war and emphasize only cherry picked Sibera/Mongolia/Tukic things to many Hungarian articles, even if those things are not in his marked sources.

Talk:Hungary#Middle Ages OrionNimrod (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you removed content and I only advised that you discuss on the talk page.

I was not the one who added to the article that which you removed. Are2The2 (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

My edit summaries explained why I removed two words: "stupid claim" and "indeed?". The use of neither terms was verified in the article, and unverified statements can be deleted any time. Borsoka (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• C-Class Ethnic groups articles
• High-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• C-Class Hungary articles
• High-importance Hungary articles
• All WikiProject Hungary pages