Talk:Hungarian Turanism

The Habsburg conspiracy theory
Two good readings about the roots and origins of Habsburg anti-turkic anti-turanian conspiracy theories:

http://www.tenyleg.com/index.php?action=recordView&type=places&category_id=3115&id=319584

http://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/akiknek-el-akarjak-venni-a-multjukat

The "Trefort quote" was debunked: It was a primitive type of counterfeit
You can read about it here: http://toriblog.blog.hu/2010/12/07/hamis_e_a_nemzetveszto_trefort_idezet

It was invented by Canadian-Hungarian refugees in the 1970s. The "Habsburg oppression" of Turanism was entirelly built upon that fantasy. In the reality the Habsburgs rather supported it. See the forced royal MTA appointment of Vámbéry, who was the only believer of Turkish-Hungarian linguistic and ethnic relations in MTA.! And remember the first patron of Turan society, who was a Habsburg archduke in 1910.

Cumania and fake Neo-"Cuman" people in "Kunság"region
The most importandt and strongest center of Turanism is the Kunság region, where a very special identity crisis (and double identity) exists until this day. Why are many cumanians turanist? Cuman minority were turkic speaking people, whose language remained until the end of 1600s. Therefore they want to link the Hungarians with themselves, by the claiming that weird belief that Hungarian is a turkic language and ethnic group. However very very few Cumans survived the Ottoman wars. However there are thousands of (fake) "neo-Cumans" in modern Hungary.

You can read about it here: "Kunok legyünk vagy Magyarok": http://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/kunok-legyunk-vagy-magyarok

--Friarjuli (talk) 09:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

'Western' POV
This article politicises Turanism with an understandably western point of view. Hungarian Turanism is a reaction against this. Various disciplines from the 1700s onwards originating from the Holy Roman Empire had discounted and even ignored written eastern histories and commentaries, not just of the Hungarians, but of other 'Turanian' peoples as well. Citing Max Muller and Red Arrow communists actually debase the concept of Turanism which is seen in this article as nationalism. This may be correct for that time, but not prior to it or in the present. This article refects the defacto view on Turanism, now being classed as pseudoscientific, thus falling into western political ideology - or should I say weltanschauung - just to keep it in historical perspective. The Roman church had also contributed very significantly to the rise of Turanism in attempts to invalidate Hungarian arguments and moves for independence since the mid 1500s. Now, there has been a resurgence of 'Turanism', principly on linguistic studies, DNA halotypes (proving no racial link with the Finns) and a general review of past historic methodologies. Consequently, Hungarian 'Turanism' and Turanism in general is not a historic leftover, but has a renewed modern usage. I can't leave the article as it stands and will include (not delete) a new section on modern turanism and eastern thought. Htcs (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

DNA tests did not support the eastern origin of present-day Hungarians. Hungarian Turanism is not supported by academic historians of the world. All Encyclopedias, like English Britannica German Brockhaus French Larousse, E. Americana Encarta Encyclopedia all did not support it, and called as pseudo science. The Human Genome project (population genetics) also don't support that. Slavic people and the Balkan people have average higher ratio of non-European haplogroup markers than Hungarians. There are only less educated worker class people in Hungary who support it. Only the self-appointed so-called "magician historians" and their fantasy esoteric books (Táltos-tudósok) teach turanism in Hungary. But this self-appointed "scholars" have never went to university, they remained proletars by the means of education. It is a pseudo science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.201.128 (talk) 19:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Finnish Turanism?
Is or was there also something like Finnish Turanism?80.141.179.108 (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Popularity
It would be awfully nice to see some analysis of popularity of this doctrine. Looking at on-line discussions it may appear that an average Hungarian takes it without questioning, fiercely opposing the mainstream point of view on premise of conspiracy, which is disturbing. StasMalyga (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Genetic researches
Dear user 188.6.41.104, it does not matter what MMA is (it was just a conference), the author of the article is Pamjav Horolma from ELTE. Raskó's conclusions are WRONG because they were looking for only Asian markers (N1c) to find Finno-Ugric population. This is very wrong. The "Finno-Ugric" ratio can be much higher in the present-day Hungarian population than Raskó stated. Actually I defend your viewpoint, however the conclusion of the ancient bones are misleading (they did nothing with European markers in connection with Finno-Ugric populations.....).


 * http://www.mma.hu/20120106-ii-czuczor-fogarasi-konferencia/192-eszak-es-del-a-finnugor-nepek-etnogeneziseben

Another thing, you told me I mixed the results. Actually I just cited from the PHD (A, B, or N1). "....11% az ázsiai haplocsoportok (A, B) aránya, ráadásul az N1a haplocsoportba tartozó három minta mindegyike rendelkezik egy mutációval (16189C), ami az adott klád ázsiai ágára jellemzı, így a klasszikus honfoglaló vonalak 28%-a ázsiai eredetű....."

Fakirbakir (talk) 08:21, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The MMA is not a scientific organisation. Its a cultural organisation for arts. The source and its statements are not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.118.144 (talk) 10:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Finno-Ugric marker N1C1 is rare (around 1%) in present-day Hungarian population. Even Romania Slovakia had higher ratio.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml The N1C1 is a finnougric asian haplogroup. The ratio of turkic and hunnic haplogroup (haplogroup Q) is the rarest in Europe. The sad fact for the believers of Turan fantasy: The most of present-day Eastern European populations have higher ratio of asian haplogroup markers than modern Hungarian population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.118.144 (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not about reliability. As I said it is from a conference and I did not cite from that on wiki. The main thing is what Horolma (from ELTE) said there about subclades of "European" R1a1 in connection with ancient Finno-Ugric population. I do not care about turanists actually I defend the academic viewpoint. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

But don't forget: the Hungarian and International academic viewpoints reject the turanian fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.6.212.5 (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Unsourced info
User:Maghasito please attach sources when you add new information. 79.117.167.69 (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead
I've just reverted this again. 'Scientific notion' is both inappropriate and unsourced. This is probably something to do with idiomatic English - perhaps 'hypothesis' is what was meant? On my talk page, Maghasito agrees that "The two Gestas do not mention "Turanism", but describe the Hungarians as the descendants of Huns and Scythians." The only way these can enter the article is through sources that discuss them in relationship to Turanism - and I can't find any (I'm ignoring websites, I mean academic sources). Our article on Sándor Korösi Csoma doesn't mention Turanism and I can't find sources linkng them. All of this appears to be original research. Another issue is that they would only belong in the lead if they were developed in the article. The lead is meant to be a summary of the article, see WP:LEAD. Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we have to distinguish between "tradition" and "modern concept". Hungarian Turanism was based on an old and prideful tradition but the modern concept evolved into something else.....something worse. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
After I reverted Maghasito, he posted to my talk page accusing me of censorship. Copying my reply here: "We should not call this hypothesis/concept a "scientific notion" - in common English the term is restricted to the hard sciences such as physics. Subjects such as linguistics, ethnography, history, archeology, and Orientalism are considered social sciences in the English speaking world. We attribute material to show it is their opinion, but we do not say "personal opinion". If you want to say that the root of Turanism are considered by some (ie in your terminology is their personal opinion) to be in the Gestas, find academic sources and attribute them. I'm sure that you could improve the article if you followed our guidelines. Do it bit by bit. Turanism is not scientific but a political/historical viewpoint, so we can use both academic and media sources. We don't have freedom of speech on Wikipedia, we have guidelines and policies which you need to follow. The article doesn't follow them entirely but some of your changes didn't help. Others am restoring at least in part. I did mention some issues in my edit summary. If you want to use Farkas Ildikó as a source, do, but attribute the text to him. If you want to say "This tradition served as starting point for the scientific research of the ethnogenesis of Hungarian people. Kőrösi Csoma Sándor" fine, but you need a source that says that." I've restored quite a bit. Can I point out that the lead should summarise the article - see WP:LEAD and that User:Fakirbakir's comment above should be taken into account. Dougweller (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Dougweller what do you think about the latest edit ?


 * It is better. I haven't looked at it in detail but it still shouldn't use the phrase "scientific notion". Turanism calls it a Hungarian nationalist ideology but we'll have to change that to match this article, or vice versa. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

verification
Cited: "In addition, as the cornerstone for racial nationalism, Hungarian "Turanism" came into being. This pseudoscientific ideology strove to prove the existence and superiority of a unified Hungarian "race" and therefore inevitably incorporated an anti-Jewish aspect.". (p. 34) Fakirbakir (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Doesn't belong to page 34 nor to the protagonists Zoltán Vági, László Csősz and Gábor Kádár. --Agaceri (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * p. XXXIV (Introduction). Fakirbakir (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt the credibility of that passage. Again: It doesn't belong to the protagonists Zoltán Vági, László Csősz and Gábor Kádár. If you can't provide who wrote it, you can't use it as a source. Agaceri (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not know what you are talking about. The introduction part cites its authors as Zoltan Vagi, Gabor Kadar, Laszlo Csosz. Cited (headline): "Introduction, Zoltan Vagi and Gabor Kadar with contributions by Laszlo Csosz.". Fakirbakir (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian Genetics
Ironically, the most Slavic speaking nations, and Northern Germanic nations (Sweden Norway Northern Germany) contain higher ratio of Mongoloid Asian haplogroup markers (like N1C1 and "Q") than Hungarians. Unlike the Hungarians, Balkan people (incl. Romanians) have also very high ratio of middle-eastern Near-eastern and Northern African haplogroup markers, which caused their average darker pigmentation (eye, hair color, skin tone) See the genetic chart of European nations: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml --Friarjuli (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And what is the point? Would you like to use this info in the article? You know turanists really like the subject of genetics. They think that the high ratio of the European R1a1 haplogroup in the Hungarian population is a direct evidence of Central Asian origin. [Ra1a haplogroup was born in Central Asia (present-day Iran) and its subclades migrated to Europe and India]. Central Asia was mainly "European" in the sense of genetics in the Middle Ages. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. 1st: The turanists are weak in genetics, that's why they believe in laughable fantastic tales. 2. The geographical origin of haplogroup markers does not matter, because only the germanic I2 haplogroup marker was born in Europe. All other European haplogroup markers were born in Asian territory.(because homo sapiens came from Africa and migrated to Asia and than to Europe. So according to this wrong interpretation all European people are Asian. --Friarjuli (talk) 13:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a fact Western and Central Asia were/are mainly European in the sense of genetics. Yes ancestors of Europeans migrated to Europe from the East. Do you think the peoples of India are Asians? Geographically Yes, genetically NO. Persians? Geographically Yes, genetically NO. I will not argue with you. Oh, and do not forget the blond warriors in Tarim basin(Tarim mummies) and the "European" graves in Siberia (e.g. Siberian Ice Maiden) You have no idea what Hungarian Turanists say. Look they really think that R1a and its subclades are the key for the origin of Hungarians..... Fakirbakir (talk) 13:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the Hungarian conquerors were similar to Andronovo culture according to archaeologists. Do you think they were "Asians"? Yes, Andronovo culture were situated in Asia (Turan Depression-Ural), but they had "European" characteristics.... It has nothing to do with Turanism, however early Hungarian ethnogenesis is a very complex problem.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Turanists stressed the kinship with the present-day Mongoloid (aka: "yellow") people of Central Asia, and all people from the east: Japanese Korean Turkic people. Non-Ottoman Turkic people are hybrid people (mongoloid yellow and caucasian white). However slavic people and Northern Germanic people have higher ratio of mongoloid (aka yellow) genes than Hungarians. That is what genetics show.--Friarjuli (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Gypsy "real turanian" section needed
We must add GYPSY section to the article, because only gypsies have significant mongoloid markers in Hungary. (that's why many of the gypsy population have Epicanthic fold.

Despite that gypsies adopted IE languages, their genetics is the only real "turanian" yellow-mongoloid and white caucasian mix). Genetically they are the closest to turanian term.--31.46.83.106 (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Nowadays the weird statements of Lipták and Bartucz are considered outdated and unscientific
Nowadays Pal Liptak, Lajos Bartucz are considered outdated and false. The collected nomadic weird-look face photos from cuman jassic minorities. Read about it: http://www.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/tkt/ostortenet-nemzettudat/ch05.html--Balkuin (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? So, why does Csanad Balint (the director of the Institute of Archaeology of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) cite Liptak's work in his recent study? Fakirbakir (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

About human stupidity and fabricated history,
Our fellow „contributor” Mr/Miss Diversitirif has done some hard work to improve considerably the quality and reliability of Wikipedia in general and the article on Hungarian Turanism in particular. Feel free to look up his/her contributions for yourself!

By the way, he/she is as utterly uncultured, aggressive and arrogant as he/she could be. But his/her attitude does not change facts.

I have started my contributions to the article on Hungarian Turanism because the entry was poorly written, false, distorted and one-sided. So it was unfit for Wikipedia, and painted an untrue and offending picture about a relevant part of Hungarian culture and history. As the English Wikipedia is aimed at the international audience, it is of utmost importance to present an objective picture. Otherwise it would be nothing more, than an effective way of “Hungarian bullying”, something very harmful and destructive.

Hungarian Turnism, cultural Turanism and political Turanism alike, was born from the same circumstances and sources as any other European/Occidental nationalist cultural and political movement of the XIXth and XXth century. It was neither better nor worse than them. All of these movements had their roots in Fichte, Hegel, the evolutionist thinkers of the era, like Darwin, Ludwik Gumplowicz, Herbert Spencer etc. This era was obsessed with Race or Descent. In retrospect, all this has been stupid and harmful, and gave rise to eugenics, scientific racism, and led to syndicalism, fascism and national socialism. And these thoughts showed international appeal, from the British Empire to the German Empire, France and USA. Nationalist movements in Central and Eastern Europe used and abused history to produce “scientific evidence” for support of their claims. Vlachs used a questionable and dubious theory to support their claim for the Balkans and Transylvania, for example. But these movements gave impetus to valuable scientific research and inspired the birth of a legion of beautiful artworks too.

So it is not surprise, that Turanism played a very valuable, important and eminent role in the development of Hungarian sciences and arts. Hungarian literature would be poorer without the works of Arany János, Vörösmarty Mihály, Jókai Mór, Ady Endre etc. Science would be poorer without the work of Pulszky Ferenc, Vámbéry Ármin, Nagy Géza, Pröhle Vilmos etc.

Turanism played a very positive role in the development of Hungarian culture, undeniably and unquestionably.

And Turanism played an important and positive role in the birth of the modern Hungarian nation.

Yes, Turanism played a role in the formation of far right ideologies undeniably. But that role was minor and marginal. And everybody familiar with Hungarian history knows that well. Unfortunately, Turanism has proved an easy prey for those who wanted to lampoon Hungary, and Hungarians, and to blame them unfairly and unjustly. But in fact, Turanism stayed on the international scientific and cultural niveau of the era, as everybody with good education should know.

It is easier to blame Turanism for the rise of anti-Semitism, than to analyse the real causes, and to confess that this phenomenon was widespread in Europe, and was a result of the quick economic and political rise of Jewry, in a world of unresolved social problems and strife.

It is easier to caricature anthropologic research and blood type studies, than to confess that blood groups, discovered on the eve of the XXth century, were the first known hereditary genetic markers in an age prior to DNA testing.

It is easier to laugh at the suggestions of Korean or Japanese kinship of Hungarians (in fact all of these theories originated outside Hungary), than to confess, that the questions of Hungarian prehistory remained mainly unresolved to the present day.

It is easier to blame Turanism for the proto-fascist rule of the Horthy regime, for anti-Semitism and genocide, than to confess, that Entente powers abandoned the first Hungarian Republic, and denied any help they asked for to stabilise the state, and raised Horthy and his circle into power instead. The fact, that the Jewish political and economic elite (the Weiss barons, the Kornfelds, Chorins etc.) supported the Horthy regime up until the German occupation of the country, and deserved a seat on the benches of war crimes trials is not mentioned. The fact that most of the fascist and national socialist movements was pronouncedly Christian, and they aimed for an allied Europe of national socialist states makes many uneasy. But Turanism is at hand.

To sum all this up, Turanism has been misrepresented, and as a consequence, got an unfavourable image amongst those who had no aptitude to get a deeper knowledge of Hungary, Hungarians, and their culture and history. And that is a shame. A shame, and not on Hungarians…

Have a nice day,

Maghasito — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maghasito (talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

"utterly uncultured, aggressive and arrogant as he/she could be. But his/her attitude does not change facts." It is true for your activity too. The proof: This is your first talk-page entry. You changed text without any debate, and you deleted well referenced texts, which is prohibited by the wiki standards..

" Turanism because the entry was poorly written, false, distorted and one-sided." It is not one-sided, it is based on real scholars and science. You try to smuggle fringe theories in this article via the false claim of pluralism. I suggest to read this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-history and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoarchaeology and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscientific_language_comparison

You forgot to mention that these turanic belief-system are considered outdated by all modern academic scholars (historians geneticists and linguists), thus you mislead the readers.

"It was neither better nor worse than them." But it became worse. You can't deny its political rule diring the interwar and ww2 period.

"very valuable, important and eminent role in the development of Hungarian sciences and arts." Can you explain how can a (false) origin theory develop the science ( physics chemistry medicine nuclear medicine research, engineering science etc???) or Hungarian arts? It had no impact on Hungarian architecture, because nomadic central asians had no impact on Hungarian architecture. All Hungarian eastern impacts (in the 19th century) were born as a local effect 19th century western French British Orientalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism#French_Orientalism

"Science would be poorer without the work of Pulszky Ferenc, Vámbéry Ármin, Nagy Géza, Pröhle Vilmos etc." Or the pseudo-sciende woould be poorer in Hungary in the 21th century ?

"Turanism played an important and positive role in the birth of the modern Hungarian nation" Or it led to its catastrophe and discrediting in Europe? (see its role in Treaty of Trianon: http://digitaljournal.com/article/273638 If you think it was positive...

"than to confess that blood groups, discovered on the eve of the XXth century" Just a famous example: According to blood groups, Russians and many african black tribes are cousins. Only Y and mt.DNA researches are considered scientific method in the 21th century.

" Korean or Japanese kinship of Hungarians" became a core of Hungarian Turanism during the interwar and ww2 era. It was state-suppoerted idea: http://falanszter.blog.hu/2011/06/22/gigantikus_attila_szobor_es_koppany_torony_turani_epiteszet_budapesten

"Japánban például kimondottan üdvözölték az „elveszett nyugati törzs visszatalálását” az ősi gyökerekhez, 1927-től a magyar nyelvet is jól ismerő Imaoka Dzsúicsiró a Felkelő Nap országában tartózkodó Barátosi Balogh Benedekkel közösen létrehozták a Daido (Nagy Erkölcsösség) néven futó turanizmust hirdető klubszerűen működő köröket, ahol nemcsak a kulturális- politikai-gazdasági előnyöket, hanem a magyar-japán vérrokonságot is bőszen hirdették. Mindezek mellett a bécsi japán követ, Tani Maszajuki kezdeményezésére Budapest és Tokió egy közösen gründolt kémhálózat kiépítésébe is belevágott Sztálin Szovjetuniója ellen, amit kezdetben - elsőbbségére hivatkozva- a Harmadik Birodalom még meg tudott fúrni-, ám pár év elteltével Nikko Bunka Kykoai néven csak megalakult a kulturális intézetnek álcázott spionszervezet."

Hungarian Cumans forexameple -who had many cousin nations in Central asia- have double identity, where the cumanic is stronger than Hungarian. (Or they have strong identity-crisis). That's why Turanism is so strong in Kunság region of Hungary. Many of them try to turkicize / "cumanize" the past of Hungarian nation, to avoid their identity problems. Unlike the Hungarian, their language was turkic, they spoke Hungarian since the 18th century, but their life-style material culture differs from Hungarian folklore (remember the Tanyavilág). Anthropologically many of them are closer to turkic people than to Central European (forexample average Hungarians) people. --Diversitirif (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

It is of no merit to debate with someone, who does not understand how a theory, even a false one could/can help in the development of science and art, about the development of human culture and science. In fact, my contributions to the article have been based on reliable and quality sources, and I have restrained myself from expressing my personal opinions. In reality, I find the question of the origins of the Hungarian language and nation a secondary, albeit interesting one. Hungarians have lived in the Carpathian Basin for more than 1100 years, for sure and without question, and they possess a beautiful culture and language. The article is about the history of a movement, and not about its credibility, as I see.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This is only your second talk-page entry. You changed text 10 times without any debate, and you deleted well referenced texts, which is prohibited by the wiki standards.. You did not answer my previous writing. These sentences are important here: Forexample: Parthian-Hungarian Jesus, the belief in Korean Japanese blood-brother kinship, the Sumerian fantasy, the falsified Trefort quote, the Habsburg myth, (you believe in Habsburg myth because you believe in Turanism) The British agent Vámbéry who disseminate the turanism amongst Central Asian people which had important rule in The great game between British and Russian Empires. Even the mention of left-liberal internationalists like count Mihály Károlyi and Oszkár Jászi in the Hungarian turan society would be important. The excellent relations of Turan society with communist Béla Kun's regime would be important too. Because many people (including you) believe that turanism is a type of patriotism. Generally these informations are all very important.

Can you explain how could turanism Hungarian sciences and arts? Don't you confuse it with the impact of contemporary French orientalism on Hungary? Central ausian nomadic people have no architecture paintings and relevant sculpture. Moreover their literature is negligable. There were no Cass 1 Hungarian poet writer who were influenced by turanism. (Class 1 writer and poet means: Internationally famous authors. Class 2: They are not known in abroad, but it has national or local importance, they are often part of elementary and secondary literature education. Class 3 authors are known only for experts and a relative few people. I think only some "class 3" authors were influenced by turanism. --Diverser (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I do not comprehend your text fully. Perhaps that is my fault. By the way, it would be great, if you would be able to redress it a little, just to help me.

Your sweeping generalizations about the cultural backwardness of Central and Inner Asian peoples tell a lot about the deficient nature of your knowledge in this field. In fact, the peoples of these regions have had a well-developed architecture, in wood and in stone. May I turn your attention to the architecture of Tibet, the Dongshan people, or the Ujghur architecture of Kashgar? Have you ever heard about the Mongol prints and paintings, depicting Buddhist subjects or about the Mongolian Buddhist monasteries? The Secret History of Mongols is contemporaneous with the Hungarian Gestas. The Kitan built a large empire, and created beautiful art in many medium.

Keep reading!

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong again. You always try to avoid to reflect to my previous writings. (why?) Your new strategy (the spurious and strained "mannerliness") is unable to hide your weakness in argumentation. Central Asia was full with nomads. Their architecture was unable to effect the Hungarian architecture. (you are unable to give a concrete example for that.) Their social economic scientific development were negligible in a comparison with Hungarian (and European) development. All "eastern" cultural effect came from the French 19th century orientalism (and less degree British), which were concentrated to other parts of Asian continent. About gestas: Many nations wrote history books on this planet, itself the "history genre" does not make them similar. Do not forget turanism was CREATED as a misconception only in the 19th century.--Diverser (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

There are no obstacles other than yourself keeping you from writing a history of Turanism, a history matching your own standards. It is not my job or duty to phrase your concerns and theories about Turanism (or about anything else), so you should do that for yourself. No one can prevent you from writing about Trefort, conspiracies, Cumans, Class 1, 2, 3 writers and the like. It is up to the editors to leave such things in place, or to remove them.

It is very obvious that you and I have had quite different knowledge and views about Hungarian culture and history, and our attitudes about science are incompatible. But I contributed to Wikipedia not just for you, so I tried to write a stylish, readable, informative and objective account of Hungarian Turanism. As I see, the article is far better now, than it has been a few months ago; much more informative and better referenced. I used reliable scientific publications as references, and used Vámbéry’s own works as source, and I provided quotations and translated them into English when I was asked for.

I have rewritten the lead after the appearance of the “need to be rewritten” label, and it is better now, at least.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Magashito. Central Asian people were nomads, with nomadic "value system". They had similar value system like the present-day gypsy population of Europe (the deny of private propriety the sanctity of life etc...) and they remained in these "value system" until the Islam or Buddhism did not civilize their behavior. I don't think that European high culture is comparable to asian. Lets look the architechture. Western gothic cathedrals were bigger thaller (with bigger windows) than ancient roman temples. (see English French German cathedrals). They were the largest architectural challenge until the invention of skyscrapers. The medieval English Windsor Castle (see the photos on that arcitcle) was even bigger than the largest imperial palace of the Roman Empire (the so-called famous Nero palace). The ancient European and renaissance mathematic philiosophy theatre, sculpture fine-arts paintings are also much finer than Chinese or Japanese. Western European technology and civilization became much developed around the 14th century than the Eastern high cultures. The metallurgy and steal industry were much developed than the eastern too.The development of Eastern science and technology stopped around the 14th century. We talked about the Eastern high cultures, but we can talk about the Eastern low cultures (like central Asian nomads)... Please reflect to my earlier writings, and don't try to avoid the answer.--Dosemark (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I have reflected to your earlier writings already. So far as I am able to judge from your writings, you are a cultural racist with a very limited knowledge about Asian culture and quite peculiar views about human culture, science and life. Our discourse would be unfruitful, to say the least. You predicate without real argument, and draw false conclusions from invalid premises. I find this tiresome. You talked about ”High” and “Low” cultures, but I do not know such things... European/Occidental culture is not better than any other one, just different, for me…

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

According to your weird logic, economic historians, historian specialists of technology and science, social scientists are all racist because they were enough brave to compare the development of different countries and civilizations. You started the personal insults, than I will continue: Do you have any of the serious above mentioned university degrees to start a discussion in this filed? I think you are a naive lesser educated person (like the vast majority of turanists) who are enough naive to believe everything which sounds enough fantastic. You are inappropriate for any compromises, you support pseudo history. You deleted citations of well known experts, which is considered as impermissible deed by Wikipedia rules. (szerintem a kurultájosok vagy a magyar turáni szövetség küldött a wikire hogy trollkodj)--Dosemark (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Egy kis olvasnivaló, talán műveltebb leszel. (tudom csípőből azonnal elutasítasz mindent és mindenkit akinek más a véleménye mint a tied (és ezért nem is olvasod el): http://www.nyest.hu/hirek/birodalmi-vagyalmok-br-turani-lazalmok, http://www.nyest.hu/hirek/turani-gondolatok --Dosemark (talk) 11:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

„The White Man’s Burden” has pressed too heavily on your shoulder… A discourse is impossible between us. You do not understand me, and I am getting tired of it. Zajti WAS AN ARTIST (PAINTER) and religious historian, and his contribution to Hungarian Orientalism and culture is worth mentioning, as he was the founder of Hungarian India Society, and helped to develop cultural connections and relations between Hungary and India. The Museum of Újfehértó bears his name: “Zajti Ferenc Helytörténeti Gyűjtemény”.

Anybody who thinks that technological developments show/represent the “value” of a culture is stupid. Your contributions have showed that your knowledge of human culture and your understanding of it are extremely superficial and limited. But the real problem is your deficiency in reading comprehension. You do not comprehend/understand the text of the article. And this makes any effort towards a discourse pointless.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Magashito, you try to promote a pseudo-historic fairy tale, which had no linguistic historic and genetic background. Do not try to interpret the opinion of real scholars (academic scholars university professors) as racism. Or did you forget the Armenian genocide (where turanism played a part) or Szálasi system (the turanism was also its core belief)? I think do you support uneducated self-appointed shaman scholars like Badiny or Zajti, who invented the parthian-Hungarianan Jesus tale. Badiny and Zajdi did not have any university degree in linguistic or history. So they were self-appointed shaman scholars. Zajti was just a librarian (not a serious job and degree). Technological development is part of the culture. But can we talk about central asian theatricals? Novels? Philosophers? ? Paintings, sculpture, and serious architecture? Or wat does culture means for you? Be serious, you try to defend a clown-like losing case, which lies discredited the Hungarian people in so many times in Europe.

Read about turanism here: It was written by Turkish academic historian Emel Akcali: http://www.ceu.hu/event/2014-05-28/neo-turanism-and-its-performance-everyday-geopolitics-hungarian-far-right --Dosemark (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

About the number and size of quotations
Dear Madam Voceditenore,

I have used the quotations because the credibility of my edits and my citations has been questioned, and the text of the article has been peppered with quotation requests by some users.

Turanism is a controversial subject, and some editors/contributors, like User 86.126.34.160 from 20 march 2014, and user 79.117.166.240 from 21 march 2014, asked for quotations and translations, and users like Friarjuli/Diversitirif/Diverser/Dosemark attacked almost everything in the article (not to mention the personal remarks), so I have been forced to put an end to this war with the addition of actual source texts.

Thank you for your understanding,

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Maghasito, in the section at Talk:Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, I was referring to the lengthy quotes in Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. Re the edit-war which you are currently engaged in here, you have not been forced to do this. If a quote has been requested, you only need to quote the very brief sentence which actually supports the disputed assertion, not whole passages. There is certainly no reason to quote extensively from Csohány János: Leo Thun egyházpolitikája. That source is available online in its entirety. Voceditenore (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Qoutations and translations should be provided in footnotes, not in the article text. Avpop (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree re putting the brief quote and/or its translation in a footnote rather than in the article text, but even there, the copyright infringement policy applies. They must not be lengthy chunks. I know of at least one editor who was indefinitely blocked for persistently (ab)using footnotes to insert large chunks of copyright text into articles. Voceditenore (talk) 10:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

On the tendentious disuse of a quote
From this text, which states that Turanism was little more than a fringe ideology of the Right, while the second orientation of the national socialists, Pan-Europaism had a number of adherents and was adopted as the platform by several national socialist groups:

''"While Turanism was and remained little more than a fringe ideology of the Right, the second orientation of the national socialists, pan-Europaism, had a number of adherents, and was adopted as the platform of several national socialist groups." in: Andrew C. János: The Politics of Backwardness in Hungary, 1825-1945. 1982. p.275.

Themightyquill has edited this, heavily distorting the author’s original intent:

Andrew C. János asserts that, although "Turanism was and remained little more than a fringe ideology of the Right" it nonetheless "had a number of adherents, and was adopted as the platform of several national socialist groups."

I find this kind of “editing” unethical and unacceptable. I hope you think so too.

Have a nice day!

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Maghasito, I agree that the paraphrasing was inaccurate in the context, but to assert that it was deliberately "unethical" is a complete failure to assume good faith in an editor who is trying to improve this article. Moreover, I see that you are continuing to edit war and revert any edit from any editor with whom you disagree. The worst thing about what you are doing is that at least two editors have attempted to address the awful mess you have made of this article with its misspellings, incoherent over-quotation and poorly formatted referencing. By reverting their edits indiscriminately, you have restored the problem. Note also there is no such English word as "Nationsocialist" (Party). You either need to use the Hungarian term as it was in the quote "Nemzetszocialista party" (small "p") or completely anglicize it, as the editor you reverted had done. Your adding (sic !) to the article following Nationsocialist Party is completely inappropriate meta-commentary and does not belong in the article. One more set of reverts like this and I'm taking this to Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Voceditenore (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I certainly didn't mean to create an inaccurate paraphrasing, and don't appreciate the accusation, Maghasito. I have no political stake in whatever fight is going on here, I was just trying to make the introduction comprehensible. The phrase "the second orientation of the national socialists, pan-Europaism" didn't make any sense to me, and I thought it was simply an awkward description of "the Right." Why is there any need to include a description of the importance of pan-Europeanism (pan-Europaism is also not an English term) to the Hungarian Right at all? How is that relevant to an article about Turanism? The first part of the sentence, "Turanism was and remained little more than a fringe ideology of the Right" seems to be all that's necessary for this article.


 * Secondly, when searching for "Nemzetszocialista" online, a good many of the hits are referring to Germany's National Socialist party. Neither the Arrow Cross Party article nor the Government of National Unity (Hungary) article make any reference to "Nemzetszocialist" so I literally don't know who is being described here. The point is that "nationsocialist" is unclear to English speakers - no one will know who the author is talking about - so it has to be identified in some way rather than simply quoted verbatim. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

idea vs tradition
My rephrasing "Hungarian Turanism is based on the idea that the Hungarians' ancestral homeland was Asia." makes a lot more sense to me than the reverted "Hungarian Turanism is based on an ancient tradition that places the Hungarians' ancestral homeland in Asia."

Tradition doesn't seem to be the right word to me. Would anyone else care to comment, since this seems to be controversial from Maghasito's point of view. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your rephrasing is clearer to me as explaining a concept. RashersTierney (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not a real tradition, because the pseudo-scientific Turanic people and turanic languages were invented only in the 19th century.--Dosemark (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Permanent ban for Maghasito!
USer:Maghasito try to spread of pseudo science, the so-called Hungarian Turanism, which is now a politically motivated chauvinist pseudo-science from the 19th century and a core agenda of far right Jobbik party and ww2 nazi Arrow Cross Party. There are not a single contemporary scholar (academics university professors) linguistics, historian, population geneticist on this planet, who support that fantasy theory. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, however it is not the place of the popularization of pseudo-scientific politically-motivated fantastic nonsenses. The best option would be the permanent ban of Maghasito. Thank you!

--Dosemark (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dosemark, I have removed your personal attack on and speculation about another editor's identity. Please stop this immediately. I have already explained to you why your way of approaching this is wrong and counterproductive. Repeated violation of Wikipedia's policies forbidding personal attacks and harassment will result in a block. Voceditenore (talk) 06:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now, Dosemark has been permanently blocked. Be careful what you are for! Bearian (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Slow but persistent edit war
Maghasito has once again reverted (either in while or in part any and all attempts by a number of editors to improve this article and restore the version to his preferred point of view. Today's reversion marks the third time in less than a week that he has done this. This is leaving aside his edit war with the now blocked Dosemark. The article has become impossible for anyone to improve. As an outsider, I have the clear impression that there is a distortion of the literature (e.g. constantly insisting that Turanism as a "science" when it is manifestly not) as well as a flooding of it with irrelevancies and poorly translated, unnecessary quotes which (on the surface at least) look like attempts to make the well-documented fringe/fascist aspect of Turanism seem less prominent. Voceditenore (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're right. Of course he/she hasn't really succeeded since the article is now almost incomprehensible to an English speaker. Personally I'm thinking of this topic as the Hungarian equivalent of King Arthur but with more political overtones. Most of us here (in the UK) regard the whole King Arthur thing as a quaint myth, largely used to market tourist events, but it does have it's ardent followers. I notice that the King Arthur talk page has a section on "Fringe Scholarship" which I suspect we are dealing with here. Nigej (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. Note that in the current version of the article "The idea of the necessity for "Turanian brotherhood and collaboration" was borrowed from the Pan-slavic concept of "Slavic brotherhood and collaboration". is referenced to the Encyclopedia Britannica but rather distorts the original wording: "some Hungarians sought to encourage Pan-Turanianism as a means of uniting Turks and Hungarians against the Slavs and Pan-Slavism". However, it also fails to mention a much more telling statement by the EB: "It was popular mainly among intellectuals and developed from a now largely discarded theory of the common origin of Turkish, Mongol, Tungus, Finnish, Hungarian, and other languages...". (Encyclopedia Britannica. "Pan-Turanianism", my bolding). On Wikipedia, this "now largely discarded [19th century] theory" has somehow morphed into a "medieval tradition" (referenced to this in which I can find nothing to support that assertion, although I may have missed it) and (repeatedly) a "science", when it is no such thing. Voceditenore (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sirs or Madams,

English is not my mother tongue, and my command of it is far from perfect.

Perhaps as a result of the total lack of my English language skills I do not understand fully the critical remarks of Voceditenore. I did not revert the text, just put back a reference, and added some new information to the body text. As you could see, I removed some of the quotes in accordance with her earlier critique and dressed the refs into a more uniform shape. The disputed reference to EB was put into the text by somebody else at a much earlier date. In the case of a political ideology I find the use of the attributive ”pseudoscientific” questionable, because there is no “scientific political ideology”. Perhaps the reasoning behind political Turanism could be called ”pseudoscientific”.

Thank you for your kind attention,

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 16:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Madam Voceditenore,

This is from the automatic translation of the text:

(The Hungarian-Turkish "Turan link") The closest relatives of the noble Hungarian historical tradition of the Turkish peoples eyes.

This is the Hungarian original:

(A magyar-török „turáni kapcsolat”)A magyarság legközelebbi rokonainak a nemesi történeti hagyomány a török népeket tekintette.

This is the text in my poor translation:

(The Hungarian-Turkish "Turan connection") Nobiliary historical tradition considered the Turkish peoples the closest relatives of Hungarians.

Thank you for your kind attention,

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

And see the ratio of middle-eastern (often semitic) haplogroup markers (various „J”) and african (black) markers (E1B1) in all balkan populations (inc. Romania). De facto, these nations populations genetically are less European than Hungarians. --Eszlenyek (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Image from Holy Crown of Hungary
We have an image here from the Holy Crown of Hungary titled ""Géza, the faithful king of Türkia" on the Holy Crown of Hungary, from the XIth century." In Holy Crown of Hungary the translation is ""Géza I, faithful kralj of the land of the Turks" while explaining that "The contemporary Byzantine name for the Hungarians was "Turks",... ". In Géza I of Hungary the translation is given simply as "Géza, the faithful king of Hungary". So now I'm confused as to the point of the image since the use of the word "Türkia" seems to have no connection with the word "Turanism", as I had naively assumed. Other than providing a pretty image of an 11th century Hungarian King I don't see the point of its inclusion. If it is retained I suggest "Géza, the faithful king of Hungary" as the simplest translation for the general reader. Nigej (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam Nigej,

There is no contradiction in the translations. It is a Byzantine Greek inscription: Гєωβιτzас Пιсτос Κρаλңс Τоυрхιас. The English translation of this is: "Géza, the faithful king of Türkia".

“Géza I, faithful kralj of the land of the Turks” is a more free translation, but keeps the original meaning. It replaces “Türkia” with the phrase “land of the Turks”, but the meaning of the two is the same. “Kralj” is the ancient Slavic form of the Hungarian word “király”, which is the equivalent of the English word “king”. The Byzantine emperors called Hungary “Türkia”. There were dynastical ties between the two countries, so the Byzantines had first-hand information about the ethnicity (or at least the self-definition) of the Hungarians. This image from the Crown played an important role in the “Ugric-Turkic War”, as historical proof of Hungarian-Turkic kinship.

Hope, my explanation might help.

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * In this book I've found the following quote:
 * Tenth-century Byzantine sources, speaking in cultural more than ethnic terms, acknowledged a wide zone of diffusion by referring to the Khazar lands as “Eastern Tourkia” and Hungary as “Western Tourkia” Avpop (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. 1) It's still confusing to the general reader who might assume from "Géza king of Türkia" that he was king of Turkey or Turan or somewhere else in that part of the world. If the specific use of "Türkia" is important I suggest "Türkia (i.e. Hungary)" instead. 2) You mention that the image played an important role in the "Ugric-Turkic War" but the section here doesn't seem to mention it. There needs to be some mention if the image is to have some context in the article. 3) You say "so the Byzantines had first-hand information about the ethnicity (or at least the self-definition) of the Hungarians. This image from the Crown played an important role in the "Ugric-Turkic War", as historical proof of Hungarian-Turkic kinship." but these statements seem to me to be a massive jump from "The Byzantine emperors called Hungary "Türkia"" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigej (talk • contribs) 13:21, 10 June 2014‎ Nigej.
 * Indeed, Nigej. It's a prime example of synthesis and a good demonstration of why it's not allowed on Wikipedia. This article is full of it. Voceditenore (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Sir or Madam Nigej,

The Ugric-Turk War was a long scientific debate about the ethnic and linguistic origins of Hungarian people. Hungarian historical tradition considered Turkish/Turkic peoples the closest relatives of Hungarians. This tradition is recorded in Hungarian Gestas.

Many of the available historical sources mention the Magyars as Türks. Their own Hungarian historical tradition considers them kin of Türks. What is known about their culture from written sources and archaeological artefacts shows very strong Turkic character. The Hungarian language sticks out from the Finno-Ugric linguistic group in many respects.

After the birth of the Finno-Ugric theory, the critics of it pointed out the theory’s discrepancies with the available data. The opponents of the new Finno-Ugric theory and proponents of the better justifiable Turkic theory were called “Törökösök” (Turkists), and later Turanists.

There is no place to go into details. But the Turkists pointed out, that the Finno-Ugric and Altaic languages show a remarkable similarity in many respect.

It is an undeniable fact that the Uralic languages belong to a trans-Eurasian belt of agglutinative languages, together with the so-called Altaic languages, like Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Koreanic etc. Typological parallelism is accompanied by areal adjacency, making it possible to speak of a distinct Ural-Altaic language area and language type. It is important to note, however, that the typological similarities are not accompanied by any significant amount of lexical cognates or even lookalikes, except for items documentably transmitted by way of borrowing. But in the case of Hungarian there is a large corpus of cognates (300-400 words for a minimum) with Turkic etymological origin, and many more with good/acceptable Turkic etymology.

The Turkists pointed out, that the Finno-Ugrist answer, borrowing from Turkic, is an overly simplistic explanation of the situation and an ethnic and linguistic merger of Finno-Ugric speaking and Turkic speaking elements is a more realistic and probable scenario, made possible through the aforementioned linguistic/structural similarity of the Ural-Altaic languages. The reasoning was quite sound and progressive, and pointed out the unsuitability of the traditional “family tree model” for the description of ethnic and linguistic relations, because languages and nations do not behave in the same way as the biological species.

This theory, propagated by Vámbéry and others like Marczali Henrik, was met with stark opposition on the Finno-Ugrist side, albeit this theory was in better accord with the available data. The debate was more of a bout about scientific prestige, than a proper scientific discourse.

The unfruitful debate was never closed properly, just petered out, because the Turanists abandoned it after a long while. This resulted in more than one attempts for the harmonization of the contradictions of the concept of Finno-Ugric linguistic (and ethnic) origin and the available historical/scientific data. But these attempts were not really fruitful, and these problems haunt the research of Hungarian prehistory even today.

The image on the Crown was a proof of the Türk origin, and was mentioned in scientific texts, like „Szilágyi Sándor szerk.: A Magyar Nemzet Története.”, and its value was disputed by Finno-Ugrists like “Munkácsi Bernát: Török eredetű-e a magyar nemzet?” The argument about dynastical ties and knowledge of ethnic affiliation is not my own, it was used by the Turanist side in the debate.

I put the image into the article to show that the concept of Türkic origin was much more than a mere “idea”, it was a thousand year old living tradition, and Turanism was based on this tradition (for good scientific reasons).

Thank you for your attention,

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 11:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Gesta Hungarorum is a mediaval storybook, not a reliable source
It talks about ancient romanian (vlach) principalities and kings before the Hungarian conquest, it consider Szekélys as semi-romanian (vlach people), according to Gesta cumans and jassic (late immigrants) people lived in Hungary before the Hungarian conquest. It is full a pure fantasy and speculations. Gesta and some later medieval books tried to establish genetic connection with the Jewish people too.--Eszlenyek (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Linguistic and population genetics discredited the turan fantasy
Sorry, but Turanian people Turanian language did not exist until it was invented by the 19th century Western European linguist.

There are no linguistic similarity with Turkish languages, and there are absolutely no genetic connections. So what are you talking about here?

bout population genetics:

The lack of "eastern or mongoloid genes".

Hungarians are genetically more european than most slavic speaking people (who contain more Asian mongoloid Y and mt.DNA haplogroup markers), but all Northern Germanic nations (incl. Northern Germany too) have higher ratio of Mongolid haplogroup markers. See the ratio of Central Asian haplogroup „Q” and the other mongoloid haplogroup marker „N” (aka. N1C1) markers in the genetic CHART of European nations:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

And see the ratio of middle-eastern (often semitic) haplogroup markers (various „J”) and african (black) markers (E1B1) in all balkan populations (inc. Romania). De facto, these nations populations genetically are less European than Hungarians. --Eszlenyek (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I must admit I despair a bit when I see the word "haplogroup". You only have to sit on a Budapest bus to realise that modern Hungarians are basically genetically Europeans. Despite this obvious reality, a lot of people seem to believe the Turanist mumbo-jumbo. It's quite interesting that modern Turanists don't seem concerned that they themselves might be European as long as they can believe that the original Hungarians were indeed Asians. They have the Hungarian language and Hungarian culture and that seems to overcome the problem that they themselves are not descended from the original Hungarians. Nigej (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not want to defend Turanists, but, did you know that the vast majority of the 10th century conqueror Hungarians carried European haplogroups (richer graves- 75 percent, poorer graves- 95 percent)? Did you know that the "proto-Magyars"(Sargatka culture) were -anthropologically European- Andronoid folks? The steppe region (in Central Asia) was dominated by "European" haplogroups. The Khanty and Mansi peoples (linguistically the closest to Hungarians) were Andronoid folks too who migrated from the southern steppes to Siberia around 500 AD where they mixed with the native Paleosiberians. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether the "10th century conqueror Hungarians" had "European" genes or not is interesting but not particularly relevant. It seems to me that Turanists believe that the "10th century conqueror Hungarians" came from Asia and they themselves are some sort of cultural descendants of these conquerors. I suspect that no amount of discussion about haplogroups will persuade them otherwise. Nigej (talk) 06:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to raise attention to the fact that geneticists have no idea who the proto-Magyars were. They do not know (yet) which haplogroups were associated with them. Unfortunately, geneticists tend to make conclusions and assumptions without any "proper" historical knowledge of the past. Results of Istvan Rasko's team > (1, 10th century--all samples together-- 2, samples of cemetery of Harta 3, the samples of the richer graves ---"presumably conqueror warriors"--- 4, poorer graves 5, present day Hungarian samples 6, present day Szekler samples.) Fakirbakir (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, Hungarians have never lived in Central Asia  (it is a turanist viewpoint), Hungarians came from the Ural.

Nigej, You forget the turkic Cuman minority in Hungary, which have still not true Hungarian identity, but a dual identity. These "Cumans" are the core-base of turanism in Hungary. This dual-identity often caused identity crisis for many of them. They lived in their reserve area Kunság (Cumania), where they enjoyed tax exemptions, they were free in preserve area, and they had not landlords. Vast majority of them were killed during the Ottoman wars, and after the Ottoman-Habsburg wars, many Hungarians moved to their former place. These non-cuman new settlers tried to avoid taxes and re-feudalisation by claiming that they are the true descendants of cumans. So a fake neo-cuman identity developed in Kunság area. (again: very few cumans survived the wars). They have different material culture, and vast majority of them did not lived in real villages or towns, but in so-called tanyavilág, which is similar to 19th century American farmers, where next neighbor located around 3-4 km distance. Many of these "cuman" turanist try to turkicise even the past of the Hungarian nation--Perlumint (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We do not know exactly where the Hungarian Urheimat was. The northern regions of Kazakhstan are part of the Eurasiatic steppe belt and belong to Central Asia. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

And what's up? Don't forget: Modern Hungary Slovakia Romania and Bulgaria located in the Eurasian steppe belt too.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.103.171 (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Fully protected, one week
Start discussing reverts, please. --Neil N  talk to me 13:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:NeilN,

There is not much to talk about. The user Farbentelevision/Perlumint/Eszlenyek/Dosemark/Diverser/Diversitirif/Friarjuli (and sometimes without an username) is one and the same person. His sole contributions are deletions and destructive edits, and uncultured and meaningless quarrelling in the talk pages. A short glance to his contributions is more than enough… Hi is kind of a white supremacist and cultural racist, lacking even the most basic knowledge about Hungarian and Asian history and culture. I have supported my edits with sources and citations from quality scientific literature, so anybody could check them. Perhaps this is the reason why Farbtelevision is the sole one who deletes them en masse. He speaks at random about genetics, haplogroups, fake neo-Cumans, backwardness of Asian peoples and the like without any cohesion, and ignores boldly even the most basic and well-known facts.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

--Maghasito (talk) 08:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I should say that I come from a position of almost complete ignorance about the topic and stand to be corrected on any point. Actually, my ignorance is quite useful because I'm in the same position as many other readers of the article. The article gets off to a bad start since the first paragraph says: "Hungarian Turanism is a loosely defined and diverse phenomenon among the history of Hungarian ideas. It includes many different conceptions and served as a guiding principle for scientific theories and research, and for many political movements. It was most lively in the second half of the 19th century and in the first half of the 20th century. Hungarian Turanism has been based on an ancient, and still living tradition (In this respect see the legend about Hunor and Magor (the mythical forefathers of the nation), or the legend about the Turul (a mythical bird of prey, and a frequently used heraldic beast). In Hungarian tradition the royal house of the Huns and subsequently Hungarians bears the name of the Turul clan (original Latin: genere Turul).) that places the Hungarians' ancestral homeland in Asia." Even this paragraph is largely incomprehensible to me. Perhaps something simpler, like "Hungarian Turanism is a loosely defined and diverse concept that the Hungarian ancestral homeland was in Asia." would be better. I presume that modern Hungarian Turanists believe that they are, in some way, descended from the original Asians, but even this is unclear from the article.
 * As to Maghasito's remark about someone being a "white supremacist and cultural racist". This confuses me even more. Isn't the whole basis of Turanism that it's supremacist and culturally racist? Excuse my ignorance. Nigej (talk) 09:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear User:Nigej,

Racialism or ethnicism is not racism. The base of Turanism is the conviction, that Hungarians have had much in common with their Asian kin, and this common heritage is valuable and worth to preserve. Turanism was/is a multifaceted phenomenon. It was only loosely defined, so it was able to accommodate many –often diverging– trends. Many of its adherents turned towards Asia because they were interested in Buddhism or Taoism and the arts associated with them. For most of the Turanists Hungarians and their Asian kinsmen are neither better nor worse than the other peoples of Europe (or of the Earth), but EQUALS. And this attitude was developed in response to the loud and prejudiced German and Slav anti-Hungarian propaganda of the XVIII-XIXth century, picturing Hungarians as barbaric and backward.

The present form of the lead is a result of multiple edits of different editors over a long period.

Turanism is an important part of Hungarian cultural history. It played an eminent role in the development of Hungarian culture, science and art. Many of its adherents belonged to the frontline of sciences and arts. They were neither idiots nor mischievous bastards. And there were no clear-cut boundaries between “Finn hating Turanists” and the “apostles of the Holy Faith of Finn-Ugrism”: “Turán”, the periodical of Turáni Társaság was edited by Bán Aladár, a poet, folklorist, and literary historian, who translated the Kalevipoeg into Hungarian. (He was a vice-president of Turáni Társaság.) Vikár Béla, an ethnographer, who translated the Kalevala to Hungarian, was member of Turáni Társaság. After the second world war turanism became a scapegoat, and was blamed, mostly unjustly, for fascism, racism, anti-Semitism, disseminating unscientific theories etc. But more than one members of the Turáni Társaság found their place in the scientific life of the communist regime. Perhaps the devil was not as black as he was made out to be.

Have a nice day,

Maghasito

--Maghasito (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Nigey, The turanism was always a racist ideology, before the WW1 it had soft form, after the WW1 the racist aspect became much harder. Turanism considered the Indoeuropean speakers and European people and their culture inferior to the Asians, and it proclaimed the superiority of Central Asian nomads (!!!!) Modern Turanism, and its Organization, the Hungarian Turan foundation is closely related to nationalist Jobbik party.

In international and national scale (Academic scholars university professors: linguists historians and population geneticists) have always rejected the turanism. The turanism also include all of the recognizances of pseudoscience pseudohistory and Pseudoscientific language comparison. It had no linguistic historic or genetic background. Only self appointed shaman-scholars (without any university degree ) teach them for the less educated radical proletarian youth (with vocational training school education) on the video sharing services or in the Jobbik founded folk high schools, which are de-facto political party-schools.

Turanism is also a big business, there are Turanist book distribution networks, bookstore networks, trading with Chinese origin souvenir junk productions in turanist music festivals etc.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.238.143.71 (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hungarian Turanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111219170302/http://www.jobbik.com:80/jobbik_news/europe/3198.html to http://www.jobbik.com/jobbik_news/europe/3198.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Turanian Turul??
Not an expert on Hungarian ethnic politics, but the connection of the Turul (a medieval story) to Turanianism (a 19th/20th century scientific racist political movement) seems logically absurd and smells... bad. --Yalens (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Update: the source, all in Hungarian for the thing about the turul... is not in fact about the turul. In fact the word "turul" does not appear. Smells like OR, I will commence removing it. If this is actually respectable material and my CTRL+F simply isn't working for Hungarian text, let me know. --Yalens (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarian Turanism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150530210838/http://budapesttimes.hu/2012/02/05/turanism-the-new-ideology-of-the-far-right/ to http://budapesttimes.hu/2012/02/05/turanism-the-new-ideology-of-the-far-right/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Maghasító deleted scholastic academic references and texts, and replaced it with pseudo scholastic works
He deleted referenced texts, and he uses dubious pseudo scholastic magazines (like Valóság Online) as sources. Turkish and turkic kinship theories were not accepted until the post 1848-49 revolution era, when Turkey (with American diplomatic efforts) accepted Hungarian refugees of the 1848 revolution.--Filederchest (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Dear Filederchest,

FARKAS Ildikó, the author of the article in question, holds a PhD degree in history (https://doktori.hu/index.php?menuid=192&lang=EN&sz_ID=11177), and “Valóság” ("Reality"), where the article was published in print, is a monthly magazine devoted to social sciences, published by the “Society for Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge” (http://www.titnet.hu/). The honorary president of the society is Dr. VIZI E. Szilveszter, a former president of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences,  the president is  Dr. Hámori József. Questioning the credibility and scientific value of this publication is an unforgivable insult.

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Their second option: The scholars and scientists (linguists historians and population genetic researchers) globally conspired, because of the (the long dead) Habsburg monarchs, because of the Soviet communist agents (Soviet Union and Communism collapsed) or (and it is very popular) the evil Jews conspired against the TRUTH (Despite their contribution in early turanism was more important than the contribution of Christian origin scholars).--Filederchest (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1st: There are no scholars on this planet who consider Hungarian as a Turkish language, you can learn Hungarian language only in Uralic/ Finno-Ugric department in all foreign universities. Do you think that the scholars globally conspired?
 * 2nd: You have no proofs for the Habsburg conspiracy, which was invented only in the 1970s.
 * 3rd: Turkic people and Turks became popular in Hungarian theories only after the 1848 revolution, when Kossuth and his friends were accepted as refugees in Turkey, due to the diplomatic negotiations of US president Millard Fillmore. I also searched reference about it, and you deleted, simply because "you do not like" the content.
 * 4th: Before the 1970s Turanists did not support the idea that the Hungarian is a Turkic language, because most of them were supporter of Finno-Ugric family tree, and they considered the Turkic languages only as a possible very very distant relationship under the umbrella of Ural-Altaic theory. That's why nobody understand why do you cited the Turkic - Ugric war, since the turanists supported the Uralic kinship. The Ural-Altaic theory lost all of its popularity in the 1960s. Even the simple existence of Uralic family is not accepted by scholars since the 1990s.
 * 5th The history of Hungarian language and Germanization attempts are not related to Turanism, because the very same Germanization policy was implemented in Polish Galicia, in Czech Bohemia, in Croatia, and in Italian Habsburg lands. Or do you consider these ethnic groups as Turanists?
 * 6th The conspiracy theories are logically a necessity for all pseudo scholastic (pseudo linguistic) theories to defend the scholarly and scientifically refuted theories. It is the same in turanist conspiracy theories. Somehow the supporters of Turanist fantasy has to explain for the followers/believers why the scholars and scientists (historians and linguists population -geneticists) did not support their (very wild) fantasies. Their first option/narrative: They can say, that scholars know nothing about their field, or they are all stupid. It sound very childish, therefore nobody will believe that scientists and scholars are stupid. So it is not effective excuse.

https://mersz.hu/hivatkozas/matud_147

"Ablonczy könyvének egyik legnagyobb erőssége, hogy képes rámutatni a magyar turanizmus alakváltozásaira, korszakonként más-más jelentésére. Így a 19. század első felének turanistái Jerney Jánostól Arany Jánosig alapvetően perzsabarát és közel sem törökbarát figurák voltak. A törökség iránti intenzívebb érdeklődés 1849 után indul meg turanista körökben, nem utolsósorban az odamenekült magyar forradalmárok befogadása és a mind bennünket, mind pedig a törököket fenyegető orosz terjeszkedés miatt fordul a magyar értelmiség szimpátiája a törökség felé."


 * It is clear that Hungarian Turanism is a pseudoscience. I'm no expert on it but I oppose attempts to rewrite the article to add a veneer of respectability that it does not deserve. Nigej (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

To Filederchest,

Your destructive, unsubstantiated edits, and incomprehensible rants are a real pain in the ass, as I should repeat myself over and over again…

Simply because you don't like the above mentioned questions, and try to avoid to give any relevant answer. Why do you like the circumlocution? Why are you so afraid from a real discussion ? People who starts the circumlocution, usually try to avoid to give answers, because they have no arguments. (Mellébeszélsz ha sarokba szorítanak, ami a félelem világos jele a vitákban.)

I pointed out, that Turkic origin theory was not popular before the fall of the revolution of 1848. Even the other (similarly false) Iranian ancestry theory was more popular than the Turkic origin theory Why did you removed it? Because it can not fit into the logic of your imagination? Yes, this historic reality can disrupt your imagined Turkic interpretation.

The Habsburgs had a pronounced role in the strengthening of Hungarians nationalist sentiment. No conspiracy theories here…The aggressive German nationalism (i.e. centralization and forced Germanisation attempts) of the Habsburgs resulted in spread of affirmative and assertive nationalism (i.e. different Pan-Slavic movements) amongst the Slavic subjects of the empire, and that same aggressive German nationalism (i.e. centralization and forced Germanisation attempts) of the Habsburgs resulted in spread of affirmative and assertive nationalism (i.e. different nationalist movements, amongst them Turanism) amongst Hungarians. It is quite simple… The forced Germanisation and centralization attempts of Habsburg monarchs in the era of enlightened absolutism alienated even the most loyal Hungarian aristocrats, like the Széchenyi and Wesselényi families. And the events and aftermath of the 1848-49 War of Independence worsened this even further. The relations were ambivalent and uneasy at best.

The Habsburgs tried to surpress all nationalist attempts which can ruined their highly multi-ethnic polyglot Empire. There is a clear Habsburg conspiracy theory in your narrative. You try to advocate, that Habsburgs supported Finno-ugrists ans surpressed the turkic theory. There are no proofs that any Habsburg monarchs are interested about the linguistic history of their various subjects. The Germanization of the Habsburgs had nothing to do with Turanism, since Germanization was equally applied in all non-German province (Bohemia Croatia Italian lands Galicia) after the 1848 revolution. The minorities who served Habsburg interests during the revolution got the very same "gift" (Germanization) what the Hungarians got as punishment. Az az általános vélemény alakult ki, hogy "a nemzetiségek azt kapták jutalmul, amit a magyarok büntetésül" (Pulszky Ferenc a nagy ősi turanista saját mondása a a magyarság és a kisebbségek helyzetéről forradalom leverése után)

So you always try to avoid the question, how is the forced Habsburg Germanization policy related to Turanism and Turkic language origin theory? Please answer this question instead of generating circumlocution.

Turkic language origin theories have became strong among Turanists only after the 1970s, when some Canadian and American Hungarian emigrant dilettante self-appointed "linguists" and "historians" (without any degree in linguistics and history) started to write their fantasy books.--Filederchest (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a historical fact, that Hungarian historical tradition considered Hungarians a “people from the East”, with Turkic peoples as their closes relatives. This tradition was preserved in medieval chronicles (such as Gesta Hungarorum and Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum, and the Chronicon Pictum) as early as the 13th century. And this tradition was corroborated by historical sources like DOI’s chapters 38 and 40. It is totally unimportant, if in your opinion the two Gestas, the Chronicon Pictum, the Chronica Hungarorum and other historical works did not qualify as chronicles. None the less, these (along with DAI) are the sole main written sources of our knowledge of early Hungarian history.

"Coming from the East" does not automatically means that Hungarian language and people related to Turkic languages and turkic people. Even some absorbtion of Turkic elite in the Hungarian elite class does not mean turkic origin, like the existence of turkic loanwords doesn't transform the Hungarian language into a turkic language. Most of the population of present day Europe come from the East, from much deeper part of Asia than Hungarians, it is well known for historians who researched the pre-historic era.

Why do you call Gesta Hungarorum as "Chronicle? Even the grammar school history books mention, that the genre of Gesta Hungarorum is not chronicle! http://hirmagazin.sulinet.hu/hu/pedagogia/a-gesta-mufajarol-altalaban Only the Romanian historians call the Gesta Hungarorum as a reliable source, due to their daco-roman continuity theory. Gesta genre belongs to the medieval entertaining literature with huge fantasy. Chronicum pictum is a chronicle, but since it copied all earlier events from this entertaining literature, it is mostly not credible (only the own era of the writer is correct) These old medieval literal works make connection with Huns with Scithians and even Jews... a lot of linguistically culturally ethnically non-related people too.--Filederchest (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It is really sad to see, that you do not comprehend the difference between the scientific/truth value of a scientific theory and a so-called hard fact. But the real problem is your lack of deeper knowledge of the subject at hand…

Just remain on the subject: Your biggest problem that scholars don't support your fantastic turkic theory.--Filederchest (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I made no attempts to present Hungarian as Turkic language. Some Turanists, most importantly Vámbéry and his followers argued, that, based on the available data, Hungarian language is of mixed origin, having two genetic ancestors, Ugric AND Turkic. Some other Turanists followed the Ural-Altaic theory of genetic relatedness between the Uralic and Altaic groups. And some Turanists saw the question of genetic relatedness irrelevant, because they considered the longtime cultural contacts and cohabitation with nomadic peoples of the Eurasian steppe belt in the past a good enough reason for building ties.

Again, you come up with a very well known pseudo science. It is a known tool of Pseudoscientific language comparison. A language can not have two ancestors, the evolution of languages are not similar to the proliferation of ivory animals. So they have no paternal and maternal ancestors. The development of languages are rather similar to the proliferation of unicellular creatures, they have not father and mother. Two different languages can evolve only from one earlier language. https://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/neprokonsag-genetikai-rokonsag

The adopting of loan words doesn't make the other donor language the ancestor of the recipient language. --Filederchest (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Turanism was and is first and foremost a cultural and/or political movement. And as such, it is the subject of cultural history, sociology and cultural anthropology. Because it is a cultural phenomenon and not a scientific theory, it cannot be evaluated like a scientific theory; as being true or false. One can argue that a cultural phenomenon (in our case Turanism) is useful, useless, or even harmful from some specific point of view. But calling a cultural phenomenon good or bad, false or true is not a scientific predication; it is a moral judgement, and moral judgements are not constituent parts of science. Moral judgements are the realm of religions and philosophy. Neither religions nor philosophy can be considered science. Perhaps philosophy could be called “meta-science” … In fact, it is irrelevant if Turanism was based on (un)historical, but culturally relevant myths of origin and/or on then-current but nowadays contested scientific theories, as it adds almost nothing to the understanding of the phenomenon… What is important; why, and amongst what circumstances was it born? What effects it had?This article about Turanism is a piece concerning cultural history, and its goal should be the presentation of Turanism’s origins and history in an objective and neutral manner.

Wrong. This politically motivated hum-bug started to influence and tried to transform the linguistic and historic reality. It even invented the (fake) "turanian race" (mongoloid -caucasian mix) which does not exist in Hungary. As I pointed out in my earlier post, the most Turanist accepted the Ugric/Uralic theory. --Filederchest (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Turanism is still popular in Cumania (Kunság) region, where the people have mixed balkanic origin, since the original Cumans of Cumanian reserve area were exterminated during the Great Turkish wars, the new Serbian-Romanian-Hungarian-Albanian-Bosnian- mixed migrant population claimed and adopted the Neo- Cuman identity for political and economic interests, and their late descendants started to believe in their fake turic-cuman past. The turanism mostly popular among the turkic identity neo-Cuman quasi-minority (Hungarian-Balkanite mixed population) in Kunság region. You can read about the origin of post -Ottoman era neo- (fake) Cumanians, and how did they create their new identity for feudal era social and economical privileges here: https://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/kunok-legyunk-vagy-magyarok (Javaslom az Oszmán háborúk és a Redemptio részek elolvasását). People of cumania have very different (enough foreign) typically Eastern European and Balkanic material culture which is very different from the Central European Hungarian culture. The only cultural similarity was that neo-cumans also adopted the Hungarian language, but nothing more. You can read about it here in this university textbook, it is mostly concentrate on the Cumania region. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Ek62p5Bd9j0J:tet.rkk.hu/index.php/TeT/article/view/98/195+&cd=1&hl=hu&ct=clnk&gl=hu --Filederchest (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

After the socialist industrialization and urbanization these neo-cuman identity people appeared in a lot of cities outside cumania. Fortunatelly despite of this, it has remained only a little sub-culture in Hungary. It is not a coincidence that Kurutáj event was organized in Kunság (Cumania) region, originally its ancestor was a very small local neo - Cuman days until the neo-Cuman origin Zsolt András Bíró appeared and transformed it into "Kurutáj" and "Ősök napja" (Ancestor's day), because it is a bigger business (and profit) than the original local Neo-Cuman days. Bíró even successfully organized political connection and created relationship rich business man for his event to finance it.--Filederchest (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Maghasito

Maghasito (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC) --Filederchest (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

To Filederchest,

Your destructive, unsubstantiated edits, and incomprehensible rants are a real pain in the ass, as I should repeat myself over and over again…

The Habsburgs had a pronounced role in the strengthening of Hungarians nationalist sentiment. No conspiracy theories here…

The aggressive German nationalism (i.e. centralization and forced Germanisation attempts) of the Habsburgs resulted in spread of affirmative and assertive nationalism (i.e. different Pan-Slavic movements) amongst the Slavic subjects of the empire, and that same aggressive German nationalism (i.e. centralization and forced Germanisation attempts) of the Habsburgs resulted in spread of affirmative and assertive nationalism (i.e. different nationalist movements, amongst them Turanism) amongst Hungarians. It is quite simple…

The forced Germanisation and centralization attempts of Habsburg monarchs in the era of enlightened absolutism alienated even the most loyal Hungarian aristocrats, like the Széchenyi and Wesselényi families. And the events and aftermath of the 1848-49 War of Independence worsened this even further. The relations were ambivalent and uneasy at best.

It is a historical fact, that Hungarian historical tradition considered Hungarians a “people from the East”, with Turkic peoples as their closes relatives. This tradition was preserved in medieval chronicles (such as Gesta Hungarorum and Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum, and the Chronicon Pictum) as early as the 13th century. And this tradition was corroborated by historical sources like DAI’s chapters 38 and 40. It is totally unimportant, if in your opinion the two Gestas, the Chronicon Pictum, the Chronica Hungarorum and other historical works did not qualify as chronicles. None the less, these (along with DAI) are the sole main written sources of our knowledge of early Hungarian history.

It is really sad to see, that you do not comprehend the difference between the scientific/truth value of a scientific theory and a so-called hard fact. But the real problem is your lack of deeper knowledge of the subject at hand…

I made no attempts to present Hungarian as Turkic language. Some Turanists, most importantly Vámbéry and his followers argued, that, based on the available data, Hungarian language is of mixed origin, having two genetic ancestors, Ugric AND Turkic. Some other Turanists followed the Ural-Altaic theory of genetic relatedness between the Uralic and Altaic groups. And some Turanists saw the question of genetic relatedness irrelevant, because they considered the longtime cultural contacts and cohabitation with nomadic peoples of the Eurasian steppe belt in the past a good enough reason for building ties.

Turanism was and is first and foremost a cultural and/or political movement. And as such, it is the subject of cultural history, sociology and cultural anthropology. Because it is a cultural phenomenon and not a scientific theory, it cannot be evaluated like a scientific theory; as being true or false. One can argue that a cultural phenomenon (in our case Turanism) is useful, useless, or even harmful from some specific point of view. But calling a cultural phenomenon good or bad, false or true is not a scientific predication; it is a moral judgement, and moral judgements are not constituent parts of science. Moral judgements are the realm of religions and philosophy. Neither religions nor philosophy can be considered science. Perhaps philosophy could be called “meta-science” … In fact, it is irrelevant if Turanism was based on (un)historical, but culturally relevant myths of origin and/or on then-current but nowadays contested scientific theories, as it adds almost nothing to the understanding of the phenomenon… What is important; why, and amongst what circumstances was it born? What effects it had?

This article about Turanism is a piece concerning cultural history, and its goal should be the presentation of Turanism’s origins and history in an objective and neutral manner.

Maghasito

Addenda:

You tendentiously mix up the ancient historical tradition about Hungarians Asian Hunnic origin and kinship with Turks, well preserved in our chronicles, with XVIIIth and early XIXth century scientific ideas about the origins of Hungarian language and people. In fact, there was more than just two of such ideas... There was the concept of descent from Japheth, and Hungarian language as kin of Hebrew. And the concept of Hungarian as a solitary people, and their language as an isolate. And the concept of Hungarians as a Finnish-Tatar tribe, and Hungarian as a dialect of Finnish. And a few more... But by far the most accepted was the concept about Hungarians Asian Hunnic origin and kinship with Turks, represented by scholars like Georg Pray, Beregszászi Nagy Pál, Cornides Dániel etc.

Maghasito (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Wrong. As I pointed out with reference, the Turkic origin theories were very negligible in Hungary until the fall of the 1848 revolution, it was the result of the Ottoman reception of Hungarian revolutionaries and Kossuth. Before the revolution even the Iranian theory was more popular, and don't forget the most popular group, the traditionalists, who supported the Hun and Scythian theories. So your turkish fantasy was just negligible buble in the pre 1848 era

You repeated your circumlocutions (mellébeszélés), you did not dare to answer for the following questions: How are the Habsburg Germanization related to Turanism and your Turkic theories, since the very same Germanization was introduced in Italian Habsburg lands, in Croatia in Polish Galicia in Czech lands? You can conclude that the imperial homogenization/Germanization policy was not directed against Turanic Turkish origin theories. And we arrived to your "Habsburg anti-turan conspiracy theory" But you try to blend the two non-related things, the Germanization with your turanian fantasy to create sympathy and pity for a pseudo scholarly theory. This is exactly one of the well known tools of Habsburg conspiracy theory. You can read about the development of Habsburg conspiracy theory, and its direct falsification of quotes of historic personalities here: https://www.nyest.hu/renhirek/a-ketfeju-sas-es-a-renszarvas-baratsaga

Turanism is not only cultural political movement, but also a pseudo-scientific pseudo linguistic speudo-historic and pseudo-anthropologic one.

You did not answer to the Kurultáj and neo-cuman (Hungarian-Balkan mixature people and their very foreign material culture) phenomenon. How a neo-cuman idea developed into a national event/celebration--Filederchest (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Your Habsburg conspiracy theory (The non-related off - topic Germanization) should be removed from the article.--Filederchest (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Maghasító removed the Jewish origin Turanist orientalist scholars and its reference, becaue it can not fit in his anti-semite Turanist political ideas
Maghasító -like most of the turanists from the imagined neo-Cuman minority of Kunság region- can not tolerate the fact, that the vast majority of the orientalist scholars were mostly Hungarian Jews in the early pre ww1 era of Turanism. In this regard it was the complet opposite of finno-ugric scholars, who had not any supporters among Hungarian Jewish origin scholars. Hungarian version of Turanism transfoirmed from a mostly orientalist Jewish created phenomenon into an anti-semitic idseology after the WW1.

See Maghasitó's edits from 8th November, 2014 in the Zionism article of Wikipedia. His anti-semitic views are in his edits. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Maghasito&offset=&limit=500&target=Maghasito

--Delivert (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

MAGHASÍTÓ: Germanization and German official language was not a Hungaricum in the Empire
Germanization & German official language after the 1848 revolutions were huge problems for Polish Czech Italian and Croatian ethnic groups in the Austrian Empire too. So Germanization was not really a specific event designed only for Hungarians. It was not a Hungaricum. It also undermine your efforts, to depict the Germanization (And German official language) attempts as a phenomemnon designed against Turanism. Or do youthink that Czechs Polish Croats Italians had turanist ideas, that's why the German official language was pushed to their territories? The question of German official langiage has nothing to do with the Turanism. You can remove it as off-topic. You can move your Germanization texts inbto its proper place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanisation There are no info about Hungarian situation in this topic, despite it is its dedicated proper place of it. Or open a new own article: "Germanization in Hungary". --Delivert (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Organization
After extensive refactoring, I hope that the article now better presents the division between preambles and the rise of Turanism itself. At least the bit about Kőrosi Csóma still seems hard to place though. He seems to be name-checked again around the 1920 split of the Turan Society, which suggests that we should be maybe giving him more attention in the article (perhaps at least explain what, if anything, his travels resulted in). -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 13:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)