Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:32, 23 May 2006

Older discussions

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...Juro 01:02, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

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

(2005.09.10) 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...Juro 16:42, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

(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--fz22 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...Juro 20:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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...Juro 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...Juro 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?--fz22 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...Juro 02:55, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

(2005.09.14)

• Unfortunatelly I cannot give you sources in english. Maybe you can try this instead. Romanians in Central-Europe or Hungarians in Central-Europe

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???Juro 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. ;)--fz22 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...Juro 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--fz22 07:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• It has clicked for me: here is the link about Magyars percentage in 1941 (only mangled Hungary):

The number of Hungarians in Israel has been changed to 10,000. This is because there are only 10,000 ethnic hungarians in Israel. However there are around 250,000 jews of hungarian origin, but they are ethnically jewish, not hungarian. This article is trying to find out how many "ethnic hungarians" live world wide. Also in Australia, 62,000 people identified themselves as hungarian in the 2001 census.

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 my original formulation 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).

KissL 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...Juro 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?"

KissL 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. Juro 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. Zello 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... Zello 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. Zello 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.--fz22 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?). Zello 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 ...--fz22 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: Jewish people in Eastern Europe--fz22 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. Zello 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) --fz22 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...Juro 22:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Fast, slow, what?

I don't understand this new sentence from the anonymous contributor. What's this? Zello 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. Zello 08:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not kidding, you must update your chart because it's out of date and incorrect. Zello 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. Zello 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.27.161.101 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC).

There is a page about Hungarian prehistory where you should mention this kind of speculations. But THIS page about the Magyars contains only facts and widely accepted scientific theories. Zello 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.27.161.101 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC).

To 129.27.161.101 - Read WP:NOR and you'll see that this doesn't belong here. Besides, think about all the non-experts who will click on a link saying Hungarian somewhere. This sure is not the kind of info they will want to know. (BTW you can, and should, sign your posts using four tildes, like this: ~~~~.) KissL 10:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to develop Hungarian prehistory 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. Zello 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.

Februus129.27.161.101 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. Zello 14:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

The two theories are somewhat "wild". But the funny thing is in the article some "wild" theories are mentioned, without citation and discredited without citation. Balazs 21:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The article is about the Magyars and not about the origin of the Magyars. I don't think we should discuss alternative theories in this article. But for me it is OK to mention Etruscans and Stone Age-inhabitants together with the others in the list. Zello 21:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Disappearance

I think the version of Codex Sinaiticus is reflecting the old thesis of public law about the Kingdom of Hungary. According to that the KoH was an independent state even under the Habsburg rule wich was only a personal but not a real union. Of course the sphere of authority of the King was very large so de facto it was a real union but not de jure. This thesis was a bit corrupted by the Pragmatica Sanctio, strengthened in 1792, and even more corrupted by the Ausgleich but was never gave up by the prominent statesmen of Hungary (including Deák) and the Hungarian Parliament. So after 1920 nothing happened but the King has lost his rights, the country became totally independent again, and - of course - two-thirds of its territory was lost. Zello 03:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I know, this is an interesting topic. The main point here is that this is an article about Magyars (not about the Kingdom of Hungary), where such things are out of place, and Codex S.' version was simply misleading in that it seemed to imply that the Kingdom of Hungary somehow completely ceased to exist in 1526/1700/1867 (?), which is not the case. It is quite normal to speak of a Kingdom of Hungary up to 1918 both at that time and in present history texts and it is completely common in the history of other countries to keep the designation XY kingdom even when there are personal and other unions. And what happened after 1920 was not part of the edit, as I have understood it.Juro 04:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are absolutely right, I think all three of us speaks about the same :) As I understood, the expression of "came back into being" applies to the INDEPENDENT KoH, not the KoH in all. But you are right it is really misleading a bit Zello 13:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Map to be corrected

I found this image in the Varangians article. Maybe somebody could help the writers of that article and tell them exactly where Magyars should be in the map. It would be interesting to clarify the connections between Magyars and Varangians (Vikings) anyway, because they were neighbours for a certain period of time. --KIDB 14:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Magyars vs. Hungarians

I know that "Magyar" is the native form, while "Hungarian" is an exonym, but in English "Hungarian" is much more used:

Google search: (excluding wikipedia hits)

• 2,000,000 hits on Hungarians
• 183,000 hits on Magyars

Google books:

• 39,200 pages on Hungarians
• 13,700 pages on Magyars

Our Misplaced Pages policy is to put the page in the most commonly used English name, which would be in this case "Hungarians". Any thoughts about this? bogdan 14:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh my..., first, you should NEVER use google tests, secondly , Hungarian means "referring to Hungary" or to "Magyars", while Magyars only means referring to "Magyars". And this is a text about Magyars. Juro 17:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Juro, in the Slovakian language there is a distinction between "Uhorsko" and "Madarsko" the first meaning the Kingdom of Hungary and the second referring to present-day Hungary, am I right? The reason behind this sophisticated approach is that Slovaks have a lot to do with both the historical and present-day Hungary, so they developed this terminology.

In the Hungarian language, there is no such distinction, neither in English, and I am sure there are many native English speakers who have no clue who these "Magyars" are at all. The expression is, however, convinient if you would like to talk about the Hungarian speaking ethnic group within the Kingdom of Hungary. The expression "ethnic Hungarian" can also be used for the same reason. I think the suggestion of Bogdan is worth to consider, and to talk about. --KIDB 17:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In romanian there is "ungur" and "maghiar". The "huns" and the "magyars" were different migratory tribes-- Bonaparte talk 21:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte, we're talking about English usage not Romanian or Slovakian. Alexander 007 21:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And Bonaparte, "ungur" is derived from "Onogur", not from "Hun". bogdan 21:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Juro: in the English-speaking world, Magyars are more often known as Hungarians. To say "sometimes known as Hungarians" is misleading. You do not live in an English-speaking country, unless I'm mistaken. I do. Many English-speakers will stare blankly when you say Magyar. When you say Hungarian, they know what you're talking about. We have Hungarian restaurants here, not Magyar restaurants. Alexander 007 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with Slovak. The ethnic group is called Magyars in English (or German) expert texts (see e.g. ). Actually, you should know that. "Hungarian" is a popular "mistake". And an encyclopedia should inform people and not take over their errors. I know that people use "Hungarian", I know that they do not know what "Magyars" are (I myself also use "Hungarian" in normal communication), but that is not a reason. It would be a reason, if Hungarian had no other meaning, but it has. That's the same "mistake" like using Slovakian instead of Slovak - English people do not know Europe enough and just take the name of the country and add -ian. And my point above was that if you take google or actually any usual discussion, you cannot distinguish whether Hungarian refers to the country or to the ethnicity. And of course, it mostly refers to the country. Juro 18:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Juro, if I change "Magyars" to "Hungarians" in the search that you just linked and it gave almost 3 times as many hits: 38600 vs. 13500.

I'm a Hungarian living in an English speaking country BTW. :)

I strongly support Bogdan's suggestion. -- nyenyec ☎ 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You have not read what I have written above. Once again: Point ione: EXPERT texts use Magyar, Point two: How do you know that Hungarians always refers to ethnicity?...But do what you want, I see any expertise is useless here. Juro 19:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW this has nothing to do with whether you are Hungarian or not, but with whether you have ever read an expert text on this topic. No true expert would ever use Hungarian, because it is ambiguous. Juro 19:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I recently purchased a book called "The Hungarians: A Thousand Years of Victory in Defeat". Would this qualify as an "expert text"? I support Bogdan's suggestion too. If an American were to go to a library and want information about Magyars they would look under "H" for Hungarians. No non-expert would ever think to look up "Magyar". An encyclopedia is supposed to serve non-experts, no? But at the same time, it seems silly to be arguing semantics. Wouldn't it be good enough to simply have a redirect? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 21:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In our context, expert text means a text dealing with ethnic groups (just like this one). The title you are citing clearly has other objectives (as its wording shows). Actually, I should find some quotes now, but since I see it is useless in the long run, I won't. I have described the reasons. Google wins :) Let's hope, nuclear power plants do not start to explode one day, because the operators start to behave according to what google says :)). Juro 00:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess this is where I'm at a loss. I'm unclear on why you apply such a context to this article and why you seem to be missing the point that it is common usage in English for "Hungarian" meaning the ethnic group. Have you considered why Magyars introduce themselves as "Hungarian" and not "Magyar" to English speakers? In some ways this reminds me a bit like using the word "salt". In common usage we refer to NaCl as salt even though the word "salt" can refer to multiple substances. English speakers don't go around asking "pass the sodium chloride". If a school child was assigned to do a report on salt, the first thing they would do is go look up the word "salt" in an encyclopedia, not "sodium chloride". As with "salt", a school child would go look up "Hungarian" in an online encyclopedia, not "Magyar". This is why I fail to see why you would apply this expert text context here. Misplaced Pages doesn't strike me as an ethnographic journal read by grad students. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 17:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear on this issue, the term "Hungarian" means "anybody living in Hungary." Especially before 1918, there were many, many, many Hungarians who were not Magyars - more than half the population of Hungary, in fact. These included Germans, Jews (although some Jews and Germans had, during the 19th century, begun identifying themselves as Magyars), Slovaks, Croats, Ruthenes, Romanians, and Serbs. The issue has been somewhat obscured by the fact that present-day Hungary is fairly uniformly Magyar in ethnicity (although, should we describe Magyars in Romania as Hungarian?). But it is still a significant enough reason to keep this article at Magyars. john k 01:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid we can't be totally sophisticated in this field. If you continue this way, you should establish a way to define eg. ethnic Romanians not living in Romania. Most of them would not be happy if we started to call them Vlachs. --KIDB 10:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we should describe Hungarians in Romania as Hungarias. At least that's what they do: http://www.rmdsz.ro/script/mainframe.php?lang=eng. Vay 14:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not really how to decribe Magyars living outside of Hungary, I just threw that in as a passing thought. The problem is how to describe non-Magyars living in Hungary. Historically, they were considered "Hungarians," but not Magyars, and this is a fairly consistent usage. john k

Re: non-Magyars in Hungary: You can use the expression Ethnic Serbian living in Hungary, or Swabians living in Hungary / ethnic Germans in Hungary (they use the term "UngarnDeutsche" as far as I know). We should not invent new expressions in Misplaced Pages, should we?

Hungarian Croatians, or Hungarian Serbs? Not really. I don't think all members of these minority groups would like these expressions. Altough "Hungarian" in English literally means citizen of the Republic of Hungary, in reality Hungarian very often means ethnic Hungarian, similarly to "English" which both refers to people living in England and people with English ethnicity. --KIDB 08:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

John, Just to elaborate a bit more on the issue - I see you are American - being politically correct in the US is a bit different from being politically correct in Central Europe.

When the Kingdom of Hungary still existed, all minorities had their own name in the Hungarian (Magyar) language, eg. "Rác" meant Serbian, Slovaks were "Tót", Romanians "Oláh" (=Vlach), etc. In modern Hungary, these traditional expressions are already not in use. Today, they are called Serb, Slovak, etc.

If you are looking for similar old English expressions describing these minorities within the Kingdom of Hungary, you will not find any, because Britons were not too much interested in etchnic issues of Central Europe, so these words simply did not develop in the English language.

Regarding "Magyars", as I wrote earlier, the expression may be useful if you are discussing the history of the ethnic group with experts. If you are talking about the etchnic group of present days, "Hungarian" or "ethnic Hungarian" seems more appropriate for me. --KIDB 13:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I know that Hungarian is used, and I can appreciate that in Hungary, ethnic minorities were never called Hungarian. But we do use the word Magyar in English, and we do use it to refer specifically to the Magyar ethnicity. The word "Hungarian" can also be used in this sense, but is more ambiguous. I don't see why we shouldn't use the clear, unambiguous term, which is most certainly used very frequently in English, when it is available. john k 17:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

EB and Encarta on Magyar vs. Hungarian

It seems that...

Britannica uses both:

• Magyar: Any member of the dominant ethnic group in Hungary...
• Hungarian: also called Magyar, member of a people speaking the Hungarian language of the Finno-Ugric family and living primarily in Hungary, but represented also by large minority populations in Romania, Croatia, Vojvodina (Yugoslavia), Slovakia, and Ukraine...

Encarta uses Magyars:

• Magyars: Magyars, people who founded and continue to inhabit the state of Hungary...
• Hungarian -> Hungarian Language

-- nyenyec ☎ 17:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Table: Israel

Are there really 10,000 Magyars in Israel? If Magyar is to be read as an ethnic group, shouldn't it exclude Hungarian Jews, who were ethnically distinct? I know that many Hungarian Jews in the late 19th century assimilated and came to identify themselves as Magyars, but it's hard to see as those that subsequently left Hungary and settled in Israel would still so consider themselves. Or is there a large community of non-Jewish Magyars in Israel? john k 02:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

As you wrote in the previous article ("although some Jews and Germans had, during the 19th century, begun identifying themselves as Magyars") there were a lot of jews in Hungary in the 20th century who considered themselves to be Magyars, with Israeli religion. Ask Tony Curtis, why he comes back to Hungary sometimes. --KIDB 07:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably the 10,000 "Magyars" in Israel are simply relatives of Jewish Hungarians from mixed mariages. bogdan 10:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at www.ethnologue.com]. According to this source, there are some 70.000 people in Israel speaking Hungarian. This may be an exaggerated number, but I can imagine there are 10.000 people in Israel considering themselves Hungarian (Magyar). --KIDB 13:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly. There are many long-time Israelis who speak Romanian also, though I don't know how they identify themselves. Alexander 007 13:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

In Hungary, there's a tradition among Jews that they consider themselves Hungarians with a particular religion ("mózeshitű magyarság"). Even today this is the official policy of major Jewish organizations (like Mazsihisz) - that's why they opposed accepting the Jewish minority as a national minority during the early 90s. However, there's a new wave of Jewish organizations with the goal of amending the relevant Act so that it qualify Jewish as a national minority (www.zsidokisebbseg.com). Those Jews, however, who emigrated to Israel, IMO cannot be counted as Hungarians without further consideration (the decisive factor is whether they consider themselves Hungarians or not). (Similarly, Hungarians like to boast about Hungarian-born Nobel prize winners (many of them with Jewish ancestry) - although not all of them actually considered themselves Hungarians). Vay 14:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Vay, I know that in Hungary, Jews generally consider themselves Hungarian. I was just wondering whether Jews who emigrated to Israel consider themselves Hungarian. john k 18:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of them consider, some of them not; obviously. Gubbubu 17:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian animals

I created an independent article for Hungarian animals and gave only a link here. The topic is interesting of course but it is really weird to read about animals here where we speak generally about Hungarian people. And not only weird, indeed it is insulting (even I know this wasn't your intention!). Simply: I'm not an animal :) Zello 15:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I accept your point ... The location was unhappy ... --fz22 16:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

...and it was added after the section "Later genetic influences". :-) bogdan 15:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Finno-Ugric "theory?"

The Finno-Ugric languages are a very well-attested group of languages, as is the classification of Hungarian as of the Ugric subgroup of that family. Why does the article address this so tentavely as if it were controversial? Among linguists it is not controversial at all; no more contraversial than the fact that French is descended from Latin.--Rob117 04:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I think theory is a neutral word - there were a lot of linguistic debates in the 19-20th centuries about the origin of the Magyars and the Finno-Ugric theory was the most convincing among then. Even though the topic remained very controversial not like the origin of French, and the article shows this. Zello 07:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think (too) that the classification of hungarian language would be well-attested. the word "Theory" is applicable and neutral. Among linguists the origin of hungarians and related theories (e.g. the Theory of Finno-Ugric Ancient Home) is more than disputed (this theory, for example, disputed even among finno-ugrist linguists). Gubbubu

Romanian presence at hungarian arrival

I didn`t imply anything, I gaved sources... what else do you want? Greier 14:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Daco-Romanian theory is very much a question of controversy not only between Romanian and Hungarian historians but among the international scientific community. There are wikipedia articles where you can follow the arguments and counterarguments of both side. The reader should look up the Origin of Romanians article which quite a good one and even contains your sources! The version I proposed doesn't claim that Daco-Romanian theory is false. If something is controversial than wikipedia mentions controversiality as a rule of NPOV. Zello 15:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

But what has the so-called "daco-theory" have to do with my adds to the article??? Not only that it`s not a controversy, but it`s validity has nothing to do with the article. Let`s assume that there is no connection between romanians and a local romanised population, and that romanians did migrate from somewhere, but when the magyars arrived, they were already there. The mentions of the other populations (avars, slavs, bulgars, etc) are based on sources and intrepretation of other, more vague, sources (in other words, common sense). Well, I repeat myself: I GAVED SOURCES!!! What else do you want? It doesn`t matter that they are already mentioned in Origin of Romanians, since that`s a completely different article, wich (another repetition) HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. One last thing, you mentioned Transilvania. Well, actually, my comments refer to Pannonia, not to Transylvania. Greier 16:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Your sources are controversial. See wikipedia about Gesta Hungarorum. As you certainly know opponents of Daco-Romanian continuity deny the existence of Romanized people in the Carpathian Basin after the 6. century until the arrival of Romanians in the 12. century. Any claim that Romanized people lived there between this dates is the Daco-Romanian theory itself. It's a basic rule of NPOV that you can't present controversial things as generally accepted facts. Zello 01:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, than we can be somewhere in the middle. I think this is the best way to put it: and Romanians in the east and southeast. As I sayd: the sources and the common sense (it would be pathetic, even for the most nationalistic hungarian, not to recognise that there is something wrong in saying that in the 10th century romanians were not there, but 100 years later the suddendly appeared, BUUMMM!!!! just like that, from nowhere) show the presence of romanians in Transylvania and Pannonia, but this is questioned by some historians (and for that I added: although this is matter of controversy (see Daco-Romanian continuity.)

Something I don`t agree with: and especially the various nations (Germans, Slovaks, Romanians, Serbs, Croats and others), invited to resettle the depopulated territories after the departure of the Turks in the 18th century. First of all, there wasn`t ever such a "invitation", and secondly, the romanian element in the creation on modern hungarian nation spead for centuries, from the 11th century, well into the 21th (I say 21th because in Trasylvania there are still hungarian speaking people, with hungarian names, but with orthodox confesion, and calling themselves romanians. Most probably, decades from now they will be "hungarians". In the article I put 18th century, to prevent any controversies). It is a way too complex event (e.g.: the self-magyarisation of romanians to beneficiate (enjoy) better privileges, forced magyarisation, etc) to be mentioned in the article (plus that there already a link tomagyarisation, where such things could be better expressed).

Only a personal comment: don't panic - with current and historical demographic trends in a hundred year time there won't be any Hungarian people in Romania. There is strong hope. Zello 19:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I see no reason for you to keep editing the article, except to present vague and/or subjective info. For that, I ask that maybe there`s someone in charge here to settle this thig out, and explain what`s wrong with my edits (if there is something wrong with them...) Greier 18:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

1, About Daco-Romanian controversy: if you are able to stick to this version I think it OK and NPOV. But not necessary to mention one-by-one the sources. If the reader is interested in the topic there is the link to the article.

2, You are right that Romanians and Hungarians lived together since the Middle Ages so they mixed up with each other not only in the 18th century but all the time. The same is true for Slovaks so the sentence certainly needs rephrasing. Your present version is unacceptable because it implies that Hungarian minority in Transylvania are only Magyarized Romanians. Co-existing and blending was very much two way street and the ethnic proportions of Transylvania are again a very controversial topic. Zello 19:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

3, If you think that you are not able cooperate with me than you should request the community for comment about the article/my person (RfC). Look up the Tutorial about how these things work! Zello 19:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

At the Hungarian conquest, the Hungarian nation numbered between 250,000 and 450,000 people. Any reliable sources for these numbers? Greier 18:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

A very official source: http://www.magyarorszag.hu/angol/orszaginfo/tortenelem/tortenelem - about 500 000 Zello 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you serious? It`s very "official" and really scientific... Greier 17:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The official homepage of the Hungarian Government. Historical section written by László Kontler, Professor of History in the University of Budapest. Zello 17:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Later genetic influences

"Cumanians, Pechenegs, Jazones, Germans and other Western-European settlers" "Turks" etc.. Tatars and Russians not even mentioned.

I don't think there was too much blending with Tatars and Russians during their occupation. Tatars only destroyed the country and went away in a half year time, and Russians lived in secluded barracks. But probably there were some village girls seduced by horny soldiers... :) Zello 12:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not at all an expert in this, but look what happened during the war in Yogoslavia a decade ago: Soldiers killed the male population and raped the women. This is I would call the real "basic instinct" and I think this might have happened when Tatars killed half of the Hu population in the 13th century: they raped the other half. I also heard about the lots of abortions made in Budapest hospitals in 1945 after the Soviet liberation... But this is only my opinion. I also agree we are very similar to our neghbours, but then it should be put this way - our faces are similar, our skin is of similar colour, etc. Genetics is very tricky, phenotype does not always reflect the genotype. --KIDB 13:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely right. Only we don't have any data... Zello 14:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion: "Due to all these influences Magyars became genetically more or less similar to the inhabitants of the states neighbouring Hungary." This doensn't sound too scientific to me. If we are talking about genetic similarities, we should be using results from scientific research. --KIDB 12:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There was a debate about the question on Hungarian prehistory talkpage in the recent past. There a guy brought datas of some scientific research to prove his claim. I have serious doubts but I'm not an expert in genetics. Here I only tried to take the edge of the original - certainly exaggerated - sentence until somebody do some research. Zello 12:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Genetics

Is this needed? Sounds funny. You know, there's a trend to nationalize ethnic hungarians in the surrounding countries of nowadays Hungary, by creating false sources and/or simply declare him/her as an ethnic local despite the facts - this sentence seems as a semi-nationalization of all the hungarian people. Really funny, altough it is true, but you know, then we could write this to any ethnic groups because mixed relations (forced or not) happened everywhere. The surrounding people became gnetically more or less similar to their neighbours, and they to their neighbours etc. etc. also. --VinceB 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)