Talk:Hungarians/Archive 2

Other problems with lead section
So, why my minor changes were reverted? Let discuss the subject:
 * 1. Description "areas that were administered by the Kingdom of Hungary" is more NPOV and more accurate than "areas that belonged to the Hungary". Countries are not persons to claim property like this + Kingdom of Hungary is correct name for pre-war state.
 * 2. Difference between "and are now parts of Hungary's seven neighbour countries" and "but are now parts of Hungary's seven neighbour countries" is substantial, i.e. term "but" imply an "unwanted event" and therefore it violating NPOV policy of Wikipedia.
 * 3. Regarding 1918-1920 issue, Kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist in 1918, so it is incorrect to say that these lands were administered by Hungary from 1918 to 1920. Hungarian independent republics that existed in 1918-1919 were internationally unrecognized countries, and no matter what some people are believing, Treaty of Trianon from 1920 actually did not "changed borders of Hungary" in the way that could be related to borders of pre-war kingdom. There is no a single mention of these pre-war borders in the Treaty text and therefore there is simply no legal argument which can confirm that pre-war kingdom de jure legally existed until the treaty. The treaty only changed de facto borders of independent Hungarian state that was created in November 1918. PANONIAN  20:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (1) We may write "Kingdom of Hungary" instead of simply "Hungary", but it will not be the best choice because of the independent republics you have also mentioned. I do not agree with using the phrase "administered by" as it is not common to do so. For example, scholars write "Transylvania was part of" instead of "Transylvania was administered by"  (2) The word "but" does not imply "unwanted event". For example, when I say: "I used to live in city X, but now I live in city Y" does not imply anything about my preferences. (3) Could you provide some sources about your theory that "Treaty of Trianon from 1920 actually did not changed borders of Hungary in the way that could be related to borders of pre-war kingdom", it sounds odd . K&oelig;rte F a  {ταλκ'' }  08:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources? Sure, here it is: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/517198/Treaty-of-Saint-Germain. Quotation: "The treaty officially registered the breakup of the Habsburg empire, recognizing the independence of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, and the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes" So, it is obvious that Czechoslovakia (which included Slovakia, previously administered by the Kingdom of Hungary) and Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (which included Croatia, previously administered by the Kingdom of Hungary) were internationally recognized as a countries one year before the Treaty of Trianon (in 1919). Treaty of Trianon, therefore, only defined exact borders between these (already recognized) countries, but Czechoslovakia and Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes could not be internationally recognized if (important) parts of their territory were internationally seen as "parts of Hungary" (Czechoslovakia could not exist as such without Slovakia, as well as the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes could not exist as such without Croatia). Furthermore, pre-war Kingdom of Hungary was not a subject of international law at all, since it was only a first-level administrative division of Habsburg Empire (called Austria-Hungary since 1867). PANONIAN  09:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I couldn't follow you when you wrote that "pre-war Kingdom of Hungary was not a subject of international law at all" and that the Kingdom of Hungary (KoH) "was only a first-level administrative division of Habsburg Empire". Then why did Franz Joseph need the title "Apostolic King of Hungary"? According to your theory, the title "Emperor of Austria" would have been enough. Then why did they use the abbreviation "k.u.k." ("kaiserlich und königlich)? If KoH was *just* an administrative division, then what's the point of this second "k"? Then why is this system called "Dual Monarchy"? Take a look at these references: and there are many more. They all refer to KoH as a *country*, not just as an administrative division. Moreover, your source only claims that the independence of these countries were recognized (without setting the borders exactly), but your claim was much stronger than this: you said that the Treaty of Trianon "did not change the borders of Hungary in the way that could be related to borders of pre-war kingdom". Why could not it be related? K&oelig;rte F a  {ταλκ'' }  07:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Franz Joseph had many titles (Emperor of Austria, King of Hungary, Bohemia, King of Lombardy and Venice, of Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia, Lodomeria and Illyria; King of Jerusalem etc...). I do not see how his titles could be related to political status of the Kingdom of Hungary within Habsburg Empire - and how you explain the fact that Franz Joseph had a title "King of Jerusalem"? Do you have any real source or evidence that specifically says that pre-war Kingdom of Hungary was a subject of international law or you do not have such source or evidence? And there is no "my theory here" - I only speak about things supported by the sources. As for "Dual Monarchy" issue, it was a country similar to Serbia and Montenegro (and countries of Serbia and Montenegro were also not a subjects of international law before year 2006). Also reference that says that "Kingdom of Hungary was essentially an independent country" (do not forget word "essentially") refers only to level of its autonomy, which was exactly similar to that of Montenegro prior to 2006. Level of autonomy of the Kingdom of Hungary within Habsburg Empire is not same as a question of it being (or not being) a subject of international law. PANONIAN  09:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Pannonian is wrong. Croatia and Polish Galicia had Autonomy. The Austrian and the Hungarian lands became independent entities enjoying equal status. (Microsoft Encarta: The height of the dual monarchy) The two parts of the Empire (Koh and Austria) have equal number of members in Foreign affairs and monetary cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.168.47 (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi PANONIAN, you wrote that "there is no "my theory here" I only speak about things supported by the sources". Then, please, provide some scholarly sources which "specifically says" that the Kingdom of Hungary (during the time of Austria-Hungary) was *not* subject of international law. The title "King of Jerusalem" was just a nominal one, the title "King of Hungary" was very different from that. Your example, which was the state union of Serbia and Montenegro before 2006, is not suitable since that state had a joint parliament which was made up of members from both Serbia and Montenegro. Austria-Hungary did not have such a joint parliament. Moreover, the Kingdom of Hungary had a separate constitution, government, capital, etc. . If the Kingdom of Hungary was not a country, then how could it have an own constitution on which Franz Josef took his oath? K&oelig;rte F a  {ταλκ'' }  10:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Prof. L. L. Cavalli
Prof. L. L. Cavalli - Sforza at Standard University in the USA, when studied the migration of nations and their languages, concluded that the population of Hungary is an anomaly in Europe. They're using the language of Asian conquerors, but the population itself isn't ethnically Hungarian - it's mostly Slavic, definitely European. Prof. Cavalli - Sforza along with his colleagues confirms this anomaly using genetical blood tests, published in Scienficic American published. in Novemver 1991. According to this research the key gene (which Cavalli has relied on during long-term studies of humans and languages on all continents) is the RH-negative factor in blood. This is entirely absent from Africans, Asians and Native Americans. It's however typical for Europeans. In case of Hungarians professor Cavalli-Sforza concludes that the originally Asian conquerors have forced their language on subjugated majority and it's hard to prove even fragments of Asian-Hungarian genes in today's population of Hungary. According to the professor the population's been completely replaced. That's why anyone who speaks about "Hungarian people" in ethnical sense today, is only delving in fantasies. The majority of Hungarians knows that, but is afraid to talk about it, which naturally causes internal tension for them, confusion, extremism and can be one of the reasons for the high percentage of suicide attempts in Hungarian population.--Savneli (talk) 09:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You should read some new genetic researches before you cite a 21 years old stuff. For example here:Talk:Hungarian_people(cited: R1a1a1i (Z280+): the North-East European subclade of R1a1a1. It is common from the Baltic to the Urals as well as the Carpathian Basin. The majority of the Steppe Magyars likely belonged to this group, carrying the Ugric Magyar language). Moreover Magyars came from Eastern Europe,region of Ural. Additionally peoples of Central Asia mostly belong to the European haplogroups, what do you mean ASIAN?.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think that no matter if Prof. Cavalli is at Stanford, his opinion still looks like a fringe theory. The sentence "the majority of Hungarians knows that, but is afraid to talk about it" (why?) which leads to "confusion, extremism"' sounds especially strange and dubious. K<font color="Teal">&oelig;rte F <font color="Teal">a  <font color="DimGray">{<font color="Teal">ταλκ'' }  09:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Cavalli-Sforza said anything like, "the majority of Hungarians knows that, but is afraid to talk about it".  It's just someone on Wikipedia trying to appropriate old scientific research they don't understand for their POV. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that you are right. As I have checked, Cavalli-Sforza's view is in general that "populations are so mixed that ethnic kinship is effectively zero". According to him, it is true for most European nations (not only for Hungarians). By the way: he claims that Hungarians are closest to Poles and then to Russians (!), while, e.g., "Czechoslovakians" are quite far away (it appears that he does not make a difference between Czechs and Slovaks) . Looking at the joint history of Slovaks and Hungarians, this looks strange (even suspicious) to me, but I am not a geneticist. Anyway, his theory is not widely accepted and is subject to various criticisms. If you are interested, you may want to read this: Meanwhile, the original poster was blocked as a sock (of Samofi). <font color="DimGray">K<font color="Teal">&oelig;rte F <font color="Teal">a  <font color="DimGray">{<font color="Teal">ταλκ'' }  09:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Including alternative names in the galery(or anywhere else)
When talking about present time, alternative name use is regulated by the WP:MODERNPLACENAME and countless examples on wikipedia. There is no need for overemphasizing them when they are available even in the infobox of those particular places. Including this names when talking outside the historical context is not indicated by this rules. And when this is done, it is always done selectively, excluding some places(or adding some places), or which place is more dear to the editor. To avoid any possible problems, I suggest respecting the guild-lines wikipedia indicates. Also this "problem" (if I may call it like this) is created by a Sock puppet of User:Stubes99 and by this, his edits although he is banned from editing remains. Adrian (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You all need to come to some kind of consensus on this naming issue: I have changed the semi-protection to full protection because of the recent/current edit war. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in introduction
"Unlike the Hungarians living on the former territory of pre-1918-20 Kingdom of Hungary, only some of the ethnic Hungarians in other areas preserve the Hungarian language and traditions." I would suggest removing the sentence completely since it adds nothing to the article and is unreferenced. It could be rewritten perhaps "Hungarians living in neighbouring countries (former territory of pre-1918-20 Kingdom of Hungary) generally try to preserve their Hungarian language and traditions. Hungarians living further afield are less likely to do so." but I still think it adds nothing and remains unreferenced.Nigej 17:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

European Finno-ugric markers
I have found a good source about ethnogenesis of Finno-Ugric peoples. Unfortunately it is in Hungarian, however it is well detailed study and states that the southern Finno-Ugric peoples can be characterized by European haplotypes (e.g. R1a1-z280) in Eastern Europe. Link I think it is quite important statement in connection with Hungarian ethnogenesis. 5-10 years ago everybody sought "Asian" Finno-Ugric markers (N1c/TAT-C) in the recent Hungarian population. The new results may suggest that the methods of the researches in the previous decades were wrong. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Population displacement
I couldn't see anywhere in the article much reference to the forced population exchanges between hungary and it's neighbours in the 1920's.

The map showing regions the hugnarina language spoken is flawed, it shows where hungarians are situated now, not where they naturally were settled.

It is common knowledge in hungary that there are as many hungarians or 2nd generation hungarians otuside the borders as there are inside, bringing the global population up too 20 million. Most Slovak's have a hungarians first or second name as do many croatians (the popular surname Horvat for example — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaverd (talk • contribs) 11:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, but "common knowledge" is subjective and it is not enough for Wikipedia, since the statements here should be verifiable. You should bring reliable sources if you would like to include such information. On the other hand, there were indeed "population exchanges" in the 20th century, for example, the Czechoslovak-Hungarian population exchange, and mentioning them when talking about the distribution of Hungarians would be indeed a good idea. Cheers, <font color="DarkSlateGray">K<font color="Teal">&oelig;rte F <font color="Teal">a <font color="DarkSlateGray">{<font color="Teal">ταλκ'' }  12:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Quality
I don't know who looks after this article but frankly it is in a terrible state. Szaboci (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Otto of Freising
The quote is too funny not to include it :)) Tarabostes (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian vs. Magyar
"The name "Hungarian" has also a wider meaning, as it once referred to all inhabitants of the Kingdom of Hungary irrespective of their ethnicity." It is totally wrong. With all respect, Hungarian and Magyar are totally the same thing. It's like German and Deutsch. If you would say that not all Germans are Deutsch you will end up at an asylum. When they going abroad, the Occitans are French and the Saxons are Germans. Once (like in the 16th century AD) when a wallachian from Transylvania went abroad he defined himself as for example "Ioan from Transylvania" or "Ioan from Castrum Sex (Segesvár or Sighisoara)" and not as "Ioan from Hungary although not a Magyar one.". If this wider meaning thing is true, than it is true for all countries and for all ages. Like the name "American" has also a wider meaning...etc. If this is the case than it is totally useless to mention it in every article which has a hungarian subject. If this wider meaning thing is not true then it is just another, very nationalist way to try to anihilate the Hungarians from the Eastern European history. Please concern this opinion, and do not start a kick the hungarian competition out of it. 88.132.185.3 (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Later influences
"Vlachs (Romanians) and Slavs have lived together and blended with Magyars since early medieval times." There is got to be a better way to describe the assimilation than this. Okay, we are Eastern Europeans, but not horses for god's sake.88.132.185.3 (talk) 06:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
In my opinion, the style of the highlighted Hungarians should be changed. Currently, they are displayed in a single picture, but the table format used, for example, in the articles about Hungarian Americans or Croats looks much more professional. If I have time, I will replace the picture with such a table (if there are no objections about that). This would also allow us to rethink the list of highlighted personalities. If you have suggestions (e.g., about who should be included in the table), please, let me know. <font color="DarkSlateGray">K<font color="Teal">&oelig;rte F <font color="Teal">a <font color="DarkSlateGray">{<font color="Teal">ταλκ'' }  18:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

2011 Census
There are two data about nationality/ethnicity in the 2011 Census. One of them is called "Nemzetiség" (nationality/ethnicity), while the other one is "Nemzetiséghez tartozó" (belonging to a nationality/ethnicity). The number of people who declared themselves Hungarian in 2011 was 8,314,029 according to the first category, while 8,504,492 according to the second. The difference between the two data (according to the description on page 21 of the offical result ) is that it was possible to declare *multiple* affiliations. Therefore, the difference in the two numbers can be explained by those who not only declared Hungarian as their nationality/ethnicity, but other(s), as well (e.g., Hungarian and German, or Hungarian and Gypsy, etc.). Therefore, in my opinion, in this article it is more appropriate to use the number 8,504,492 (as this is the number of people who declared that they belong to Hungarians, too), but we can mention the other data, as well, by making an appropriate note. Cheers, <font color="DarkSlateGray">K<font color="Teal">&oelig;rte F <font color="Teal">a <font color="DarkSlateGray">{<font color="Teal">ταλκ'' }  19:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: About the total number of Hungarians in the world: I do not see any reason to change the estimate, as I guess nobody claims that 1.3 million Hungarians miraculously disappeared from the world in 10 years. If so, please, bring some sources, instead of doing original reserach. <font color="DarkSlateGray">K<font color="Teal">&oelig;rte F <font color="Teal">a <font color="DarkSlateGray">{<font color="Teal">ταλκ'' }  19:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Geographic extent
Medieval Hungary controlled more territory than medieval France....

"Medieval" is a broad term, and no description is offered of "Medieval" Hungary's extent. This statement should be illustrated with a map showing the comparative territories of France and Hungary at a given time. Sca (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Population
... the population of medieval Hungary was the third largest of any country in Europe.

What was the population of "Medieval" Hungary, when? How did it compare with "Medieval" countries of Europe? Source? Sca (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Tauszik
"Tauszik observed that a 5% group of the Hungarians, widely distributed throughout the country, featured the traits of the Mongoloid subspecies, however there is no precise answer how this characteristic got into the Hungarian population"

I have already corrected the sentence in accordance with its source, but, could anybody explain me why we have to cite Tauszik at "Pre-4th century AD" section? Fakirbakir (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed it. It is not relevant there. Moreover, modern genetic researches do not support this 5 percent. .Fakirbakir (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ancient Hungarians, modern Hungarians and Madjars
According to István Raskó's team, "genetic differences exist between the ancient and recent Hungarian-speaking populations, and no genetic continuity is seen. Contrarily to this view, Horolma Pamjav's group sees connection between Madjars (a Kazakh tribe) and recent Hungarian population "they were closest to the Hungarian population rather than their geographical neighbors"

The expression "contrarily to this view" implies that Horolma Pamjav asserts that István Raskó is wrong, in other words that a genetic continuity is seen between old Hungarians and modern Hungarians. But that is false, Horolma Pamjav does not talk about ancient Hungarians. He only talks about modern Madjars and modern Hungarians. 79.117.176.88 (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Pamjav's study Madjars and Hungarians have common ancestors. Pamjav's view about origin of Hungarians is entirely dissimilar from Rasko's opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you did not like my edit, then you should have read the source, as my edit clearly uses what the source says - please do not claim that I am modifying sourced text. <font color="#1C6EBA">Nicholas <font color="#003386">(Alo!) 23:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please read the whole section? Your text is there (Istvan Rasko's study)Fakirbakir (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, both studies are rubbish because of sample representativeness issues + methodological errors. Rasko emphasizes importance of TAT-C in ancient samples (because of language issues--Uralic connection), however the majority did not carry it, moreover he suggests common "European" haplogroups in the samples rather belonged to non-Hungarians... Pamjav concludes Central Asian origin of Hungarians and according to her view "European" haplogroups belonged to ancient Magyars too but did not give any explanation of Uralic origin of Hungarian language. Therefore Hungarian researchers have no idea who the "proto-Magyars" were "genetically". Fakirbakir (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

István Raskó and Horolma Pamjav made some genetical studies, but they did not compare the same groups. We can't talk about discordant results, because they analyzed different things. The opposite of "old Hungarians are genetically different of modern Hungarians" is "old Hungarians are genetically similar to modern Hungarians". What conclusions were drawn from the studies?79.117.176.88 (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at this picture (It is from Rasko's study). Who can tell me which were the "Hungarian" haplogroups in the 10th century samples ? (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) 00:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant: Among the 55 samples analyzed, the large majority belonged to haplogroups common in other European populations, however, three samples fulfilled the requirements of haplogroup M. Since haplogroup M is classified as a haplogroup characteristic mainly for Asian populations, the presence of haplogroup M found in approximately 5% of the total suggests that an Asian matrilineal ancestry, even if in a small incidence, can be detected among modern Hungarians. ( from here) 79.117.176.88 (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It will not help because M belongs to "Eastern Asian" haplogroups. M in Hungary is carried by descendants of "Huns" or "Mongols" (IMO). Central Asia (Caspian-Ural-Aral triangle) was/is rather European genetically where the proto-Hungarians lived. Also, we should not forget that Khanty-Mansi peoples (their language is quite close to Hungarians) migrated to Siberia from the south (Kazakh steppes) around 500 AD where they mixed with the local Paleosiberian population.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Being involved in Genetics I will say that Central Asian and North Asian/Siberian populations are close, genetically, with Europeans. From a historical view, Mongols left little to the Hungarian peoples, meaning that genetically, Hungarians (a name which I do not like because Magyars are not Huns!) are European, with as much Mongol influence as any other European nation, that is to say, very little if any. <font color="#1C6EBA">Nicholas <font color="#003386">(Alo!) 20:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Nicholas/Southeastern European/Afro-Eurasian/.../.../... is a banned user. His/her apparently strong Anti-Hungarian bias is demonstrated by the "1.4. Personal beliefs" section here, and his/her edit summary here . Please ignore his/her remarks. Borsoka (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Biologically, the population around 1000 AD in Hungary was made up almost exclusively of Europeans" - maybe it would be useful to include the percentage of Hungarians in Hungary. There is a 66% estimation of Hungarians for the the year 900, but I am not sure if there are such data for the year 1000 79.117.177.16 (talk) 09:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid it would be just a "war of percentages". The main problem is scholars can not establish (yet) which bones "carried" the Hungarian vernacular. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Do not use outdated antrropology tales from communism
http://www.tankonyvtar.hu/hu/tartalom/tkt/ostortenet-nemzettudat/ch05.html

The fantasy Turanid race was born as a political agenda.

http://www.nyest.hu/hirek/turani-gondolatok

án, nem kis mértékben a Turáni Szövetség 1931-es újraalakulása következtében. Koponyaalkat- és vércsoportvizsgálatokat szorgalmaztak annak érdekében, hogy meghatározhassák a „turáni faj” sajátosságait. Ekkor virágzott a turanizmusnak az a változata, amely szerint a Nyugat arra törekszik, hogy a megváltoztathatatlanul ázsiai magyarok kulturális és lelki „fajiságát” kiöljék, ezért a németektől és árja fajelméletüktől sem várhatunk jót, az igazi önmagunkra találást csak a turáni népekhez való visszatalálás jelentheti. Az irányzat fő ideológusa Túrmezei László, a Turáni Szövetség alvezére volt.
 * Sorry, I do not understand why your above remark is relevant in the debate. Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

title
I happened to notice that this article isn't named Hungarians, but that term does redirect here and it's used in the lead section. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any reason not to have this article at "Hungarians".

Looking at Talk:Hungarian people/Archive 1, back in 2006, there was a couple of requested moves, one of which said that this should be done, but was fairly summarily rejected because of some issues - unclean hands? In the history of the Hungarians article I can see that a user tried to do this in 2011, but was rejected because the admin thought this wouldn't be an uncontroversial move. Another user still wanted to disambiguate the term with Natio Hungarica, but that was in turn reverted. So the water appears a bit muddy, but not based on the Wikipedia policies that are actually relevant, rather on user behavior, which should be irrelevant.

Looking at a Google Books searches for "Hungarians" and "Hungarian people", I see zero sign of a controversy. The former form is clearly more common. Both are equally ambiguous with a generic term for citizens of Hungary, and both appear to satisfy primary topic requirements in that regard.

Can someone point me to some sources that would contradict me? --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Personally I think the current title is much better. From where I sit (in the UK) "Hungarians" are people who live in or are from the modern state of Hungary. I think the "Hungarian people" described here are meant to have a wider context and to include e.g. other Hungarian speakers in Romania. People over here certainly wouldn't regard someone born and bred and living in Romania but speaking the Hungarian language as "Hungarian", they would find that very strange. However they might see that they have a Hungarian ethnic or cultural background and something like "Hungarian people" describes them better, I think. Nigej (talk) 10:19, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * But why do you think that the term "Hungarian people" doesn't describe people who live in or are from the modern state of Hungary?
 * The issue you seem to be describing pretty much universally exists for the neighboring Germans, Austrians, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Italians, ... and we don't use the "people" form to try to make that distinction. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me there is a distinction in normal English between "Germans" and "the German People". Germans are people from Germany. German people might not relate to a geographical entity. If the article here is to be about people from the modern state of Hungary then I would have no objection to it being called "Hungarians", but my impression is that that is not the case. A French speaker from Belgium would not regard himself as French. I can see that the article Romanians says that Romanians speak Romanian, thus implying that a Hungarian speaking Romanian citizen is not Romanian, which seems to me quite bizarre and contrary to normal English usage. When I hear on the news about worries that countless Romanians will come to the UK from 1 January the presenter is clearly referring to Romanian citizens and not Romanian speakers. In other words it's clearly pages like Romanians which have the wrong name. "Hungarian people" is quite correct in my view. Nigej (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not get it. Hungarians in Romania possess Romanian citizenship but when the census every ten years asks them they never say that they are Romanians. Anyway tens of thousands of Hungarians have received Hungarian citizenship in Romania recently. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Horribile dictu hundreds of thousands (more than 300,000 people). --Voxfax (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Whatever the number, that has no bearing on their ethnicity. What does have bearing is what they declare at the census: 1,227,623 as of 2011. (As an aside, the actual number is surely higher, as data were unavailable for 1,236,810 Romanian citizens, which would imply some 80,000 extra Hungarians if the proportions were the same.) - Biruitorul Talk 23:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The fact that Hungarian speakers in Romania do not say that they are Romanians might be true (I wouldn't know what the census actually asks - presumably it's in Romanian and Hungarian, neither of which I speak) but is not particularly relevant here. This is the English language version of Wikipedia and as such should reflect normal English usage around the world. Certainly here in the UK I've heard many instances of the word "Romanians" recently and they have all related to nationality of the modern state and not ethnicity or native language. Nigej (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * You seem to have confused ethnicity, language and nationality. In the example about Romanians emigrating, they're probably talking about nationality, not language. At the same time, that example just shows that the word is ambiguous; it doesn't necessarily mean that the ethnicity isn't the primary topic for the word. In any event, because Hungarians is a redirect to this article, this whole line of discussion is moot because your claims disagree with the consensus (or at least the status quo) both in this case and in all those other cases. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said before, it is clear to me that the main usage of "Hungarians" in normal English is to mean someone from the modern state of Hungary. I can see that on occasions the word is used to mean something else (eg when talking about Hungarians before World War 1) but in my reading I haven't noticed too much ambiguity, just different meanings in different contexts. I don't understand your last sentence since I'm happy with the Status Quo here: article called Hungarian people, redirect Hungarians to Hungarian people.Nigej (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * What I mean by status quo is that, by virtue of that redirect, the organic consensus on Wikipedia is that the term "Hungarians" primarily means members of the Hungarian ethnic group. The meaning "people from the modern state of Hungary" (this ethnic group plus a variety of other ethnic groups) is instead described at Demographics of Hungary. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 12:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't for a minute accept that "by virtue of that redirect, the organic consensus on Wikipedia is that the term "Hungarians" primarily means members of the Hungarian ethnic group." My reason for favouring "hungarians" redirecting here is that, since someone interested in "people from the modern state of Hungary" is likely to start their Wikipedia search with Hungary (or something similar) and be led from there, it is logical that someone typing "hungarians" has something else in mind (eg the "people" or "ethnic group"). I don't regard the redirect as implying any sort of consensus on the meaning of "hungarians", even less on the primary meaning of the word. It is quite clear to me that the normal meaning of the word "hungarians" (at least in the UK) is "people from the modern state of Hungary". I shall hear the words "romanians" and "bulgarians" many times in the next week or so (as the impending ending of work restrictions approaches) and I shall not be in the slightest doubt (and nor will anyone else) as to what is meant by those words.Nigej (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I see some merit in your argument, but I don't find it convincing, simply because "Hungarians" attracted over 10 thousand views just in the last three months, and it's been pointing here since July 2003‎ with only one significant five-month interruption in 2005. I would find it seriously unlikely that in the ten years of fairly consistent behavior X, including during the heyday of Wikipedia editing, nobody ever followed through with the argument that the main usage of this reasonably common search term was misplaced here, and that behavior Y is how it should actually be. Had this been the case only in this one article, I'd yield that silence is the weakest form of consensus, but the same goes for several other such terms we mentioned earlier. It's still a perfectly legitimate discussion to have, but we're not entering into it at a point where there's no consensus. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I can explain this a bit. In slovak language there is a difference between "Uhorsko" and "Maďarsko". Uhorsko refers to Kingdom of Hungary (1000-1919), Maďarsko refers to modern Hungary after World War I (including Kingdom of Hungary 1920-1946). In slovak historical texts is term "uhorský" used if the person was born in Kingdom of Hungary in that era, while is highlighted if he had slavic or hungarian (magyar) ethnicity (usually mixed). Look for Matej Bel. His mother spoke hungarian, his father probably spoke slavic dialect from Očová, 17th century (not a modern slovak language). English has no word to distict between "Uhorský" and "Maďarský" while term "Hungary" is closer to "Uhorsko". Hungarians refer to their homeland simply by word "Magyarország", regardless of era - similarly as English do. The difference is similar as in case of "British", "English"...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Offler55 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Tell me Mr.Peabody, why did "Mad'arsko" payed all debts and warranted any obligations made by "Uhorsko"? That's a made up difference and it made up by slovak nationalists. See Hungarian vs. Magyar above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.132.184.37 (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think titles in Category:Ethnic groups in Europe can, above all, be called random. Sometimes, "people" is used because the term is the same as the language, so we avoid confusion: English people, Portuguese people, Maltese people, French people, Dutch people. But then, why Estonians, Latvian people, Lithuanian people? Why Turkish people but 26 articles using "Turks" in Category:Turkish diaspora in Europe? Why Icelanders but Spanish people and not "Spaniards"? Delicious randomness. - Biruitorul Talk 23:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's hardly random. Latvians and Lithuanians are the same issue as I mentioned here - the redirects could be used as article titles. The word Spaniards probably isn't the more common word for the Spanish (sic), meaning it's the same issue as with the English. Only Turks actually stands out because it points to a disambiguation page, but there could be a legitimate reason - see the back-and-forths at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Turks&action=history --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, they are largely random titles. Sadly some of these Ethnic group titles and the articles themselves seem to be mired in the history and politics of the area, the result being an uneasy compromise between various nationalists with a point to push.Nigej (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"Genetics"
This source is obviously a nationalist/esoteric blog, and not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Ethno-genetic (i.e. racial) categories like "East-Baltic" or "Nordoid" were postulated in the 1950s. They are not used by modern science. Human genetics and anthropology have developed a lot during the last decades. In their cited 1976 work, authors István Balogh, Péter Hajdú still assume that "Turanid, Pamirian and (...) 'Andronovo' races" were taxa of the human species, a view that has been disproved and is not held by any serious geneticist or anthropologist today. This is totally outdated and obsolete. --RJFF (talk) 10:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The genetic origin of the original Hungarians is of interest. As such, it's unfortunate that the issue gets swallowed up by local politics and cultural differences. What seems strange to me, as an outsider, is that it's clear sitting on the Budapest metro that modern Hungarians are almost entirely genetically European and the only Hungarian speakers that look at all Asian are the Roma. Nigej (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never said that it was not of interest and I have not deleted the "ethnic affiliations and genetic origins" section as such, just the parts based on the outdated and obsolete folk taxonomic racial theories of the early and mid-20th century or the ideas of pseudo-scientific hobby geneticists that have been disproven by modern human genetics. Contemporary genetic research tends to categorise the genetic origin of populations by Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups while racial categories based on phenotypes rather than genotypes (like "East-Baltic", "Nordoid", "Turanoid" etc.) are deprecated. Compare Y-DNA haplogroups in European populations. --RJFF (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem with the current article is that it starts off in the present tense ("are a nation and ethnic group who speak Hungarian and are primarily associated with Hungary. There are around 13.1–14.7 million Hungarians, of whom 8.5–9.8 million live in today's Hungary") and then spends a lot of time talking about the original Hungarians. The introduction tends to imply that the main determining feature of a "Hungarian" is that they speak the Hungarian language. This is probably true, in the sense that the article talks about Hungarians. I can see there are bits about how we got from the original Hungarians to the modern Hungarians but it's pretty obscure stuff at times. Honestly, the "Ethnic affiliations and genetic origins" section is pretty much unintelligible. The "ethnic affiliations" bit (the language and culture, I suppose) makes a certain amount of sense (eg assimilation) but, as for the "genetic origins", sadly the current article does little to further my understanding. What we need in this section is 1) some discussion about the genetic origins of the original Hungarians, 2) some discussion about the genetic origins of modern Hungarians 3) some discussion of how we got from there to here 4) some history of this topic explaining why we've gone from eg Turanoid to eg Haplogroups. We need to remember that this is an article about "Hungarians" and as such is likely to be read by the general English-speaking reader interested in Hungary, who probably thinks a Hungarian is someone who comes from Hungary (the normal English usage). Too much talk about Haplogroups is not useful for such a reader and so the article needs simplified summaries as well as the detailed stuff. Overall, a very poor article. Nigej (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Ethnic affiliations and genetic origins" section is unintelligible, of course, because this subject is highly debated in scientific circles. Your first and second suggestions do not make any sense because these topics seem to be unanswerable at the moment (IMO).Fakirbakir (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It may well be "highly debated in scientific circles" but it seems to me that the main problem is that it's also highly debated by people who know little or nothing about the topic and have a nationalistic view to push. I propose that we delete the whole section if the scientific knowledge is as hopeless as you imply. Nigej (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Pseudoscientific and esoteric theories about the origin of the Hungarians have a long history and are still very popular in Hungary, especially Hungarian Turanism, but also even bolder claims that Hungarians descend from Scythians or Sumerians; claims that are very hard to prove but are nevertheless believed by many Hungarians, including "intellectuals". It is obvious that Hungarians are not ethnically related to any neighbouring people which makes the question of their origin so dubious and interesting. Their language is obviously Finno-Ugric, but they are not necessarily genetically related to the other Finno-Ugric peoples. Some Hungarian ultranationalists even find it offensive to be categorised with the other Finno-Ugric peoples because they consider the Hungarians to be more valuable. They have therefore looked for alternative theories. The Turanism theory is very unlikely (or even disproved) from the perspective of modern human genetics. The most common Y-DNA haplogroups among Hungarians seem to be R1b, R1a and I2a, all of which are common in other European peoples too, but rather uncommon among Turks, not to speak of Mongolians. There are no living Scythians or Sumerians, so a comparison with their genome is impossible. Modern Hungarians are probably a mix of different populations who have migrated to the Pannonian Basin at different times of the history and have mixed to become one people, like most other modern European peoples (French, English, Germans, etc). But this is of course very disappointing for ultranationalists who dream of a pure Hungarian "race" and will therefore reject the findings of modern science and cling to their outdated pseudoscientific theories. --RJFF (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to end this discussion. "R1b, R1a ...rather uncommon among Turks" .....FYI, the R1b ratio is very high in Bashkirs ....Or take a look at this map . You would have to be very careful with this subject. Anyway, the scholars don't even know for sure where the "Hungarian homeland" was.... There are a lot of theories.... Don't misunderstand me, I talk about Hungarian academics and NOT about Turanist fantasts. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, its time to end it. This obsession with haplogroups is completely pointless. This is not an article about obscure genetics, its about "Hungarians". The whole article needs to be rewritten. It's terrible. The only things that the casual reader is likely to discover about the topic, before they give up in despair, is that Hungarians come from Hungary and speak Hungarian. Surely Hungarians deserve better than that. Nigej (talk) 12:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For the origin of the Hungarians would advise book by Peter Benjamin Golden An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East (1992), with pg. 258-262 exclusively about the Hungarians. As well, the often public misunderstanding of the term "Turk/Turkic" for Mongoloids and their haplogroups really needs to end. The recent studies on Turks in Central Asia and Eastern Europe confirmed the extreme Y-DNA heterogeneity. For example, the Haplogroup R1a: Kyrgyz 63.5%, Uzbeks 27%, Kazan Tatars 20%, Gagauz people 19%, Kazakhs 15%, Turkmens 7%, or the Haplogroup R1b: Bashkirs 43%, Tuymaznsky Tatars 16%, Gagauz people 12.5%, Uzbeks 11,1%, Kazakhs 7%, and so on. Yes, the lack of Haplogroup N among Hungarians is intriguing, but it cannot be confirmed any secure conclusion from this data, especially relating Hungarians with Sarmatians, that lacks even further evidence.


 * Yes, there are Mongoloids features among the Huns, Pannonians Avars and other tribes of Turkic extraction who came to Europe from Western Eurasia, but in those features, ethnogenesis and its influence is often in a larger minority than the cultural influence. Those tribes weren't "pure", they were confederations of newly arrived tribes, which were already mixed, with the conquered and assimilated tribes. Also the name to the confederation was given by the most politically strong clan or tribe, and that in those confederations under the specific ethnonyms should be differentiated the "ruling elite" (who is related to the ethnonym) and the "subordinated majority" (who don't need originally be related culturally, linguistically, and ethnogenetically with the "elite"). It's a complex topic, and perhaps as a guide would advise Golden book which tends to be quite neutral and have right stand, and see the rewritten article of the Bulgars. Good luck.--Crovata (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Excess images
I have added the "This article contains too many pictures, charts or diagrams for its overall length" maintenance tag to this article. The entire article only has a "readable prose size" of 2445 words, but has 75 images, which IMHO is excessive. Furthermore, the images are not being used to illustrate and/or "add value" to the text. The policies and guidelines are:- WP:LAYIM "Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in." and WP:NOTGALLERY "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" - Arjayay (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The gallery of personalities from the infobox
I invite everybody to post their opinions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups Hahun (talk) 11:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * RfC can be found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"The result of this RfC is that there is consensus to remove portrait galleries from the infoboxes of articles about ethnic groups. The main reasons given for this decision are that, lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people. This also applies to articles about other than ethnic groups, such as nationalities, because the discussion has shown that the same arguments apply to these groups as well." Nigej (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I think you should realize that there is no consensus on this subject: that is why your edits are reverted. I will not revert your edits, but I am sure, that during the following months, the new "consensual" policy will give rise to many conflicts. Borsoka (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see that there's not unanimity on this subject but "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity" and the result of the RfC is 100% clear. Stubbornly trying to get your own way after a decision you don't like has been made, is not the way to proceed. (i'm not referring to you here but to the editors). There are other alternatives, like putting the pictures somewhere else in the article. Nigej (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding the array as a gallery in the main space of the article clearly goes against the spirit of the consensus reached in the RfC and adds to the utter bloat of images on this page. Just as in the RfC discussion, the gallery is pure POV, with no standard employed to determine whom should be included. This page is basically reduced to a picture-book, with 74 images in an article of 50k. This is simply a work-around of a consensus that Borsoka apparently refuses to accept. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read this discussion about the implementation that well established policy here. Borsoka (talk) 15:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a very extensive discussion. Can you be more specific as to where consensus approves of simply moving the arrays to another part of the article? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought that the short discussion cannot rise any problem to you who obviously have deep knowledge of the much much longer discussion of the new policy that you are referring to. Nevertheless, here are the relevant remarks:, , . Borsoka (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * These remarks do not establish consensus for simply moving the array into the body. One says that you may attempt to do so and see if it is accepted, and the intervening comment to this remark raises precisely the problem I am raising here. There is still no standard for what should be included, the selection is prima facie OR, and it merely moves the problem from one part of the page to another. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe. Nevertheless, in lack of a special policy, general rules should be applied. The articles about the individuals say that they were or are Hungarians, consequently this information seems to be verifiable. Who do you think was not or is not Hungarian and what is the reliable source stating this? Who do you think should be added or removed and why? Borsoka (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that Hungarians make up 1/500th of the world population, it seems to me that the article ought to be aimed at the 499 non-Hungarians rather than the 1 Hungarian. As such a gallery of portraits of people they've never heard of seems of little use to me. What they want is some intelligible information about Hungarians. Sadly the current article will disappoint them. Nigej (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. The article should be significantly improved. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * and there is still the issue that the article that says, for instance, that Ferenc Puskás is Hungarian is simply saying he was from Hungary (as per normal English usage) and not that he was of Hungarian ethnicity or part of the Hungarian people. Which is why the article should be renamed to avoid such confusion in the future. Nigej (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * and the gallery is now well down the page and not right at the top. Most readers of the article won't get past the first paragraph or two and finding a paragraph like "During the 4th millennium BC, the Uralic-speaking peoples who were living in the central and southern regions of the Urals split up. Some dispersed towards the west and northwest and came into contact with Iranian speakers who were spreading northwards. From at least 2000 BC onwards, the Ugrian speakers became distinguished from the rest of the Uralic community. Judging by evidence from burial mounds and settlement sites, they interacted with the Andronovo culture." will certainly send them elsewhere. Nigej (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Moving the gallery into its own section ignores the spirit of the RfC. This isn't a game of Whac-A-Mole. The closer of the RfC noted "lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people." The gallery needs to be removed, post-haste. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I refer to my answers here and here . I suggest that you should not take unilateral actions without a clear consensus. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears that you are simply trying to localize the discussion to get around the consensus found in the RfC (which is in no manner "strange" as it was open for over a month and widely engaged). You are simply moving the very same problems addressed there to a different part of the article.  It is clear at this point that you do not have consensus for retaining the images, and I urge you not to re-add the gallery without gaining support. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Please read the "consensual" policy. It applies to galleries in infoboxes. Borsoka (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does. But, the points undermining the galleries in the infoboxes also undermine the galleries in their own section in the article. Must we really start a whole new RfC just so the word "infobox" is removed from the question? Do you really think the Wikipedia community is going to be happy to have to slog through such pedantry in order to remove a gallery that blatantly obviously should not be there? Come on. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. My questions are the following: (1) can pictures of individuals be displayed in articles about ethnic groups? (2) if they can, why cannot they be collected into galleries? Borsoka (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For the same reasons as noted in the closure of the RfC, which I have quoted above. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * If my understanding is correct, you say that individuals cannot be displayed either, because "it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people.". Am I wrong? Borsoka (talk) 18:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As Hammersoft states, you appear to be trying to reopen the RfC locally. The same difficulties that have already been discussed there are present here. The selection of subjects in the gallery is bound to be OR and will only lead to continued conflict.  The issue also exacerbates the problem raised below regarding too many images that do not add value to the text. It would be of far greater value to develop the text of this article than to add to the image bloat with an arbitrary selection of portraits. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand that I am a pig-headed editor who cannot accept a wonderful consensus. However, I have been only desperately trying to understand it. Please help me: can the pictures of individuals be displayed in articles about ethnic groups, according to that well-established consensus? Borsoka (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * When individuals are specifically discussed and their relevance described, an image complements the text. But an arbitrary gallery of individuals used simply to represent the group as a whole adds little value and invariably breeds conflict over which individuals should be included. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur with Laszlo. If there is a specific reason to include the person, then sure. Otherwise; arbitrary collections of images of people add nothing to the article. In fact, it's possible to conclude they actively damage the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. I understand. If an individual is mentioned in the text, his/her picture can be displayed, because the text cannot give rise to conflicts. However, galleries collecting the pictures of individuals are forbidden, because they are dangerous. What a nice consensus! I must obey to it. Borsoka (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not true. The basic reasons for not including the gallery "are that, lacking objective criteria, it is original research to determine who should be featured in the gallery, that this selection process generates a lot of unnecessary conflict, and that a few individuals are not an adequate visual representation of a large group of people." Nigej (talk) 09:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Hungarians. 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/20080827200821/http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality to http://www.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081028221304/http://www.cvvm.cas.cz/upl/nase_spolecnost/100023s_Samanova-narodnost.pdf to http://www.cvvm.cas.cz/upl/nase_spolecnost/100023s_Samanova-narodnost.pdf

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 19:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 one external links on Hungarians. 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/20070204001010/http://www.buod.de:80/D/kere-d.htm to http://www.buod.de/D/kere-d.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070922025459/http://epoca.globo.com:80/edic/214/soci1a.htm to http://epoca.globo.com/edic/214/soci1a.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081028221302/http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/minorities/2._FRAMEWORK_CONVENTION_(MONITORING)/2._Monitoring_mechanism/3._State_Reports_and_UNMIK_Kosovo_Report/2._Second_cycle/PDF_2nd_SR_RussianFederation_en.pdf to http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/minorities/2._FRAMEWORK_CONVENTION_(MONITORING)/2._Monitoring_mechanism/3._State_Reports_and_UNMIK_Kosovo_Report/2._Second_cycle/PDF_2nd_SR_RussianFederation_en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040621055714/http://www.stat.gov.mk/english/glavna_eng.asp?br=18 to http://www.stat.gov.mk/english/glavna_eng.asp?br=18
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.geocities.com/egfrothos/magyars/magyars.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060925013202/http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/Immigration/waves_of_immigration.html to http://www.bergen.org/AAST/Projects/Immigration/waves_of_immigration.html

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

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 21:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Folklore and Landscape - Image gallery
I am not sure if this pictures are appropriate here, since this places are not in Hungary and some of them are constructed/acquired by non-Hungarians.
 * Bojnice Castle, in Slovakia - In Slovakia.
 * St. Michael's Church, Cluj-Napoca - In Romania
 * Gothic-Renaissance Hunyad Castle, Hunedoara, Romania - In Romania and constructed by a Romanian origin nobility
 * Gothic church of Košice, Slovakia - in Slovakia
 * Rimetea, majoritary Hungarian village in Transylvania, Romania - In Romania and a typical village. Should we add all other 100000 billion villages with Hungarian majority too?
 * A Székely village in Covasna County, Romania - In Romania, same reason as at Rimetea.
 * Typical Hungarian Church in Văleni, Romania - In Romania, same reason as at Rimetea, only we add all Hungarian Churches?

Hello Adrian! St. Michael's Church, Cluj-Napoca is a church used only by Hungarian people and it is the church of the Hungarian Catholic church! Beat that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PagerAntal (talk • contribs) 06:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not something special that is associated only with the Hungarian people. This pictures represents various buildings and I am not sure if they should be outside of their country of origin articles.Adrian (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, these buildings are heritages of the Hungarian culture. And it is uncertain that the Hunyadi family was of Vlach origin.--Norden1990 (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "these buildings are heritages of the Hungarian culture" - this article is about the Hungarian people, not about Culture of Hungary
 * Some of these pictures are much more appropriate for other articles (Kingdom of Hungary, Gothic architecture, etc). St. Michael's Church, Corvin Castle or Bojnice Castle are not representative for the Hungarian people, the only connection is that those buildings were raised by the medieval Kingdom of Hungary. But I am not against A Székely village in Covasna County, Romania or Rimetea, majoritary Hungarian village in Transylvania, Romania.
 * Like it or not, the mainstream theory is that Hunyadi family was of Vlach origin Electrifier1999 (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, it is mainstream theory in Romania. But even if that were so, it is irrelevant. But I don't argue with a chauvinistic sockpuppet. Welcome back, Iaaasi :) --Norden1990 (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Norden please keep your personal opinion for yourself, we have academics claiming facts and by this Hunyad family was a Romanian origin nobility( - did`t know that Britannica is a Romanian encyclopedia) - what you or I think is irrelevant.
 * I am sorry, but I don`t see any arguments in your comment why should this article contain this pictures except "like it or not" which isn`t really an argument. So I guess we add ALL churches build under Hungarian administration? All villages in the world with Hungarian majority? Why only Gothic church of Košice, Slovakia? Why only Rimetea, majoritary Hungarian village in Transylvania, Romania??? There is nothing special about this places that is attributed only to the Hungarian people. It doesn`t make sense.Adrian (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Also I don`t see any similar example of this kind on Serbs (have a lot of places inhabited by them in Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and yet not a singe image of them here), Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Germans, Italians, Slovenes, Austrians, Ukrainians, French people.. you name it... on any of this articles I can`t find images of places outside that country, I don`t see why should we have it here? Except if it is something special, that is attributed only to the Hungarians. Instead of this strange pictures maybe this gallery should contain pictures about known Hungarian people like on Macedonians (ethnic group) article. Adrian (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Your source said: "János was of Walachian (a region now in Romania) ancestry." Not Romanian or Vlach. for example, the family may also be Cuman origin. But that's not the point, János Hunyadi, who built the castle, was a Hungarian politician and soldier who fought for Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * He might be Spanish by you...I don`t care, it is important what sources say and the majority of them support his Romanian origin. Saying that this is only a "theory" in Romania is ridiculous. I for example don`t live in Romania and the books used in schools here state the same. True, he was a Hungarian soldier who fought for Christianity if I understood it well and then for Hungary. Adrian (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant what you care. Hunyadi's origin is not proven, there are several theories. The Romanian origin is only one of them. --Norden1990 (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, only what sources say and they state that Hunyadi's is of Romanian origin (mainstream theory accepted everywhere and accepted in the academic community). Minority views exists of course but as a minority theory it can`t compare to the mainstream(they are minority theories for a reason).Adrian (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Subsection - Folklore and Landscape - Image gallery
Guys, fats are stubborn things. These are part of the Hungarian culture and people. You cannot take away pages from the book. Csendesmark (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Please don`t call a legitimate edit as vandalism. I will copy my comment in case you missed it.
 * I don`t see any similar example of this kind on Serbs (have a lot of places inhabited by them in Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and yet not a singe image of them here), Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Germans, Italians, Slovenes, Austrians, Ukrainians, French people.. you name it... on any of this articles I can`t find images of places outside that country, I don`t see why should we have it here? Except if it is something special, that is attributed only to the Hungarians. Instead of this strange pictures maybe this gallery should contain pictures about known Hungarian people like on Macedonians (ethnic group) article. Adrian (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about John Hunyadi's roots, or the nations you listed bellow. Csendesmark (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If you wish to participate, please read this discussion. The Huniade "case" is not the problem. The images are. Please study the discussion before engaging in blind reverts.Adrian (talk) 18:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I would tend to argue that the article is rather image heavy in its current state. On the other hand it is worth having at least some recognition that the Hungarian people have historically spread outside the boarders of modern Hungary. I would suggest trimming the Folklore and Landscape section down to about say 8 images one of which should be outside modern Hungary.©Geni 23:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have left images that are specific to the Hungarian people and are outside Hungary, ex: Voivodina Hungarians women's national costume; Csárdás folk dance in Skorenovac, Vojvodina, Serbia; Kalotaszeg folk Costume in Transylvania, Romania; which actually represent the Hungarian people. Adrian (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * These images are all connected to the culture of the Hungarian people, so they have the right to be in the article for illustrative purposes. They were removed without a consensus. For example: St. Elisabeth Cathedral in Košice is dedicated to Elisabeth of Hungary and it is the burial place of the Hungarian national hero Francis II Rákóczi. Or: St. Michael's Church (Cluj-Napoca) is also strongly connected to the Hungarian culture, as there were more than 50 Hungarian diets held in that church and it was the place where Isabella, Queen consort of Hungary, gave the Holy Crown of Hungary to Habsburg Ferdinand. Or the Gothic-Renaissance Hunyad Castle (Hunedoara) also has an important part in the Hungarian Culture, as it was the home of the Hungarian Hunyadi family, to which family also Matthias Corvinus (one of the most popular and successful kings of Hungary) belonged, etc. <font color="DarkSlateGray">K<font color="Teal">&oelig;rte F <font color="Teal">a <font color="DarkSlateGray">{<font color="Teal">ταλκ'' }  19:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * PS: Please, note that it does not mean that these places cannot be connected to other nations, too. For example, it may well be that the Hunyadi family indeed had Vlach ancestry (but, e.g., Matthias Corvinus's mother was ethnic Hungarian). This, of course, does not contradict the fact that the family was a Hungarian noble family and was active in the Kingdom of Hungary, fought for Hungary, contributed to the Hungarian culture (cf. Matthias Corvinus and the Renaissance), therefore, strongly connected to the Hungarian people. <font color="DarkSlateGray">K<font color="Teal">&oelig;rte F <font color="Teal">a <font color="DarkSlateGray">{<font color="Teal">ταλκ'' }  19:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * PS2: For the same reason and because many English sources use their Hungarian names, I do not see why we should not provide the Hungarian names of these places, as well, since this article is a highly Hungarian related article. <font color="DarkSlateGray">K<font color="Teal">&oelig;rte F <font color="Teal">a <font color="DarkSlateGray">{<font color="Teal">ταλκ'' }  19:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This images may be connected to the Hungarian people but if they have the right to be in the article I would`t say. They were removed because the vast majority of examples say otherwise.
 * 1) As it was stated, this image gallery is heavy, it should contain less images.


 * 2) The sites like St. Elisabeth Cathedral in Košice and St. Michael's Church (Cluj-Napoca) I would support in some manner to be present in the article because of the historical facts you presented (But that is not ok according to the other examples), as for the Gothic-Renaissance Hunyad Castle (Hunedoara) I do not simply because it is controversial and can be used for POV pushing. All the info about the castle can be found on it`s article, I think that is more than enough.


 * 3) The article is about Hungarian people, and this images can be used as POV pushing because I compared all other articles on wikipedia about ethnic groups and none of them contained images of random places outside that country. Ex: (Serbs (have a lot of places inhabited by them in Montenegro, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia and yet not a singe image of them here), Poles, Romanians, Czechs, Slovaks, Croats, Germans, Italians, Slovenes, Austrians, Ukrainians, French people, Macedonians (ethnic group).. you name it...). I don`t see why should we have it here? Except if it is something special, that is attributed only to the Hungarian people. As the folklore and traditions which images I have left on the article.


 * 4) All other nations do not have this kind of pictures outside their country, take for example the first nation only, the Serbs. They are a constituent nation in Bosnia, they have a Republika Srpska and no images of places outside Serbia? Don`t you see anything strange here in comparison to the Hungarian people article? They have a big part of national heritage, UNESCO sites on Kosovo and yet not a single picture on the article. I think that the Serbs are one of the people with the most bigger diaspora and not a singe image of random places of them on the article?
 * 4.1) Take a look at Gračanica monastery, it was declared Monument of Culture of Exceptional Importance in 1990, and it is protected by Republic of Serbia, and on 13 July 2006 it was placed on UNESCO's World Heritage List, also closely related to various Serbian Kings, nobility, Patriarchs - and yet no picture of it on the Serbs article?


 * 5) Also here on the article, on the Hungarian people, the section "Folklore and Landscape" - landscape of Hungary? Or Hungarian people? I don`t see any Hungarian people on those images. This is also very misleading. Since when is Kosice, Cluj-Napoca, or whatever place mentioned in Hungary?


 * 6) If you notice, there were some random places added in the gallery, for example: Rimetea, majoritary Hungarian village in Transylvania, Romania. How can you explain adding random places to the gallery? How to explain for example the addition of one Hungarian village and not the other? What makes one special from another? Should we add all other 100000 billion villages with Hungarian majority too? Why only this village? What is on this image so special to the Hungarian people? I see nothing special there, except some trees and a couple of houses that can be build by any ethnic group. Nothing to distinct then from all the others, something special only to the Hungarian people.


 * 7) Answer to first PS: It may be connected to other nations as well but even there you don`t notice this pictures on that nation`s articles...


 * 8) Answer to PS2, if you mean the addition of alternative place-names in the description I think that is a very bad idea(when talking about present day usage), because almost always that is used for POV pushing and as we have alternative names in the articles, there is no need to force them here, we simply use that article name(that is why that article name exists, also there is a wiki rule about the usage of the official name). Anyone who is interested about the Hungarian version name of that place, or any other language, they can find that info in the article.


 * 9) I forgot to mention that many, if not all of them don`t even have pictures of buildings on their nations`s articles, another question, why should we have it here then? Example: No buildings, even from Germany, on Germans article.


 * 10) If you take a look at edit history, you can notice that others think this image gallery is wrong, (note that we have 3 images outside Hungary now), , and this gallery was initially introduced by anonymous IP user  without any consensus. Adrian (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't have much to add to Iadrian yu's thoughtful remarks, except for two observations:
 * Wikipedia is not a children's book, which is what row upon row upon row of images make it look like. Yes, images are nice if they serve a purpose, but after a while, they become distracting. I advise participants to look over WP:IG for the rules on how galleries are supposed to work.
 * If we really want to see what the standard is, why not look at some ethnic group Featured Articles? There aren't many, but I don't see any galleries in Tamil people, Toraja or Taiwanese aborigines. Same with Good Articles like Chinese Indonesians, Cornish people, Greeks, Igbo people, Jews, Sri Lankan Tamil people, Canadians - the list goes on.
 * In sum, it seems both the guidelines and the practice elsewhere on the project indicate the gallery should go. - Biruitorul Talk 00:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, we could rearrange the gallery to contain only(like this user suggested ) a few pictures like on all examples, (5-6 images), but how to decide what images are the most appropriate? According to general practice I see no images outside that country, but I would keep at least one of the folklore images (Voivodina Hungarians women's national costume, Csárdás folk dance in Skorenovac, Vojvodina, Serbia and Kalotaszeg folk Costume in Transylvania, Romania)? I noticed that one uninvolved user said it should contain 8 images, from which one should be outside Hungary . Maybe some kind of a vote on the talk page so everyone can vote which images out of this gallery would remain? Adrian (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I was asked by an IP editor to comment here. The subsection as it is now doesn't give a good information to a reader. It is just a random collection of images lacking sufficient explanation why are those places and traditions important for Hungarian culture. I suggest you to compile a brief overview describing the main features of Hungarian folklore and landscape. It should be mentioned that the Hungarian cultural influence stretched beyond the borders of today's state. I agree with User:Geni and User:Biruitorul, the image gallery should be reduced, it should show mainly places and traditions in Hungary + one example outside modern Hungary. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As the first version I have made 8+2 gallery, 8 images from Hungary and 2 outside. As for the edit summary I used, I hope it is noticeable that I made a mistake Gallery repair according to WP:GI, general practice and talk page of the article, I used 8+2 formula, explanation on the talk page - I meant WP:IG. Adrian (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I was also asked to comment here, and although I don't have too much to add, I agree that they should be removed (or at least heavily reduced). They are mostly pictures of buildings, which would fit in an architecture article but not an ethnicity article. The above comment that loads of buildings pictures aren't in other ethnic articles is also valid. I think if readers are really curious what Hungarian buildings look like they can browse on Wikimedia. Brutannica (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Madjars
Sorry, I do not understand the logic. (1) There is an ethnic group in Central Asia which is different from all the neighboring (=Central Asian) ethnic groups (2) This ethnic group seems to be related to the Hungarians (=a Central European ethnic group) (3) Why do this similarity between a non-typical Central Asian ethnic group and the Hungarians prove that the Hungarians came from Central Asia? Should we also assume that New Orleans is the Urheimat of the Chinese people?????? (There are people of Chinese origin living in New Orleas; many of them can be distinguished from the non-Chinese citizens of New Orleans; but they are similar to people living in China.) Borsoka (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we should ask Pamjav Horolma from ELTE :). The characteristics of the recent Hungarian samples are close to a Kazakh population. It is debatable if the genetic makeup of the Majdars is typically Central Asian or not (IMO).Fakirbakir (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyway we should take her work seriously (just check her publication list link). Fakirbakir (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Bíró (who is president of pseudo scientific Hungarian Turan society,and Jobbik Supporter) and originally Central Asian Horolma is not realiable source. Read the critics here: (from page 3) http://ahea.net/admin/?path=admin/modules/journals/4/journalarticles/25/journalarticleattachments&request=modules/journals/journalarticleattachments&download=83&ajax=1

Madi-jar (not madjar!!) ethnonym means friends of Mohamed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.94.66 (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It is your own POV. Do not delete reliable sources (Who cares about Biro's POV? His !personal! opinion, is not cited in the article). "Central Asian origin is not supported by academic researches"--- It is my sentence from page of Hungarian Turanism I was who added this statement to the lead because of NPOV issues. Unfortunately this statement is not in the cited source and actually my addition was quite inaccurate. For instance, the region southward from Ural (part of the scholars assume the Hungarian homeland between Caspian sea and Ural Mountains) or the grasslands in present-day northern Kazakhstan can be labelled as "Central Asia". Anyway, Pamjav Horolma's researches (pls check her publication list, you can find newer genetic researches from her in connection with Hungarian population) are not entirely against Finno-Ugric origin, cited from Zegernyei: "Az új genetikai vizsgálatok érdekes irányokba vihetik a finnugor őstörténet kutatását is. Erre vonatkozóan figyelemre méltók a madjarok vizsgálatában részt vett kutatók publikációi (lásd a Budapesti Orvosszakértői Intézet honlapján). Pamzsav Horolma és Németh Endre januárban elhangzott előadása megfelelő történeti szituációba helyezi a genetikai folyamatokat. Nyelvészeknek azonban nem biztos, hogy tetszene, mivel a Pusztay János-féle őshaza-koncepciót támogatja" (nyest.hu, 2012). Moreover, I do not think that Istvan Fodor's and Peter Hajdu's opinions are irrelevant. Istvan Fodor works at the Finno-Ugrian department,  ELTE. He has nothing to do with "Turanism"......Fakirbakir (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. You did not read the article! This is a Turanist politically motivated agenda. The madi-jar (means: friends of Mohamed) expedition was lead by András Zsolt Bíró, the president of Hungarian Turan Society, who closely related to Jobbik party. Just watch this, When Jobbik president awarded him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yZBF4no9EpA#t=169 They purpose was clear, to find a "turanian brother nation" in Central Asia instead of Ural region (because there are only turkic speaking "turan" nations). Pamjav Horolma is a low rank researcher (she is just an academic doctor, where a simple PHD exam enough, so she is not real academics professor, not honorary or corresdondence REAL member of the academy.) Her ancestry came from Central Asian turkic territories from the Soviet Union, so it is not wonder her prepossession. Moreover, mpdern Hungarian population contain more than 11 Y haplogroup markers, and they examined only an R1a1 varians, many Central European slavic countries have higher ratio of that marker than modern Hungarians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.94.66 (talk) 14:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Who cares about "turanists"? The article cites a study from the American Journal of Physical Anthropology. Nobody mentions Zsolt Biro's own belief... You just do not like the content of the study, I just don't like it.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. Even the samples were collected by Bíró, and the madi-jar expedition was his idea. American Journal of Physical Anthropology does not matter, they didn't examined the results. PLEASE read the cited article before you write. Pamjav Horolma have never been collected sample, he used Bíró's samples.

""Following this, Bíró and his team went to visit the Madijars and were greeted enthusiastically as long-lost relatives. Bálint points out that Bíró and his associates referred to this clan not by their real name, Madijars, but by a name they gave them: Madjars. Bíró and the members of his team managed to obtain y-DNA samples from a group of Madijar men and eventually compared the results with the y-DNA of another rather small group of Hungarian men. To make a long story short, Bíró and his associates came up with the conclusion that genetic evidence also supported their conclusion about the relatedness of Madijars and Magyars. What upset Bálint even more is that these geneticists — who, according to Bálint, had no qualifications as historians, linguists or ethnographers — on the basis of such limited evidence suggested that the ancient homeland of Hungarians must have been in Central Asia. The writer of these lines cannot but sympathize with Bálint’s view. The y-DNA tests done on Madijar men indicate that they are so distant genetically from Hungarians that any relationship between the two peoples is inconceivable. Crudely put, the argument used by Bíró and company sounds like this: the Madijars are genetically extremely distant from all other populations, and they are very distant from Hungarians: therefore they must be the closest relatives of Hungarians. The major question that all this leaves for the writer of these lines (a question Bálint does not ask explicitly): how did Bíró and his team succeed in publishing an article on this subject in a major western scientific journal? The answer might be, and Bálint hints at this, that the study contributed to the knowledge of the y-DNA of a Central Asian population, when this kind of knowledge is very limited and therefore precious.""

Madi-jar nő fényképe, Bíró kedvenc weoldaláról a kurucról (ahol megjelennek véleményei) http://kuruc.info/galeriaN/egyeb/zspannonolimp55_resize.jpg http://szankinfo.hu/hir1/kep2012/0814_kurultaj_002.jpg

Itt meg a mad-jár tézsvírekkel a Bíró: http://kurultaj.hu/wp-content/uploads/Yerlan-Idrissov-Biro-Andras.jpg

Ugye mennyire hasonlítanak a magyarokra? Kb annyira mint a fekete afrikaiak vagy az ausztrál bennszülöttek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.94.66 (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your cited (pdf)text is Dreiszinger's own POV (Is he a geneticist?). Pamjav's study is debated among scholars (I can tell you Rasko's work is also disputed among researchers). If you have reliable source about this matter feel free to add it to the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not reliable source, based on political agenda, and archaism (like turanism) It was nothing more than the original project of Bíró András. I must repeat these sentences again: "how did Bíró and his team succeed in publishing an article on this subject in a major western scientific journal? The answer might be, and Bálint hints at this, that the study contributed to the knowledge of the y-DNA of a Central Asian population, when this kind of knowledge is very limited and therefore precious."
 * Csanad Balint does not agree with Pamjav's results. That is all. Actually, Balint is not a geneticist. He did not disproof any of Pamjav's results.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The central Asian Horolma and Bíró is one team, read about it on the website of turanist Kurultáj:: http://kurultaj.hu/2013/10/dns-vizsgalat-es-eredetkutatas-interju-biro-andras-zsolttal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.46.94.66 (talk) 16:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, the soviet (central asian) origin Pamjav write an article from Bíró's work and samples. Turanism and madi-jars are the same: (political agenda) http://richpoi.com/cikkek/kultura/dagesztanbol-es-azerbajdzsanbol-is-erkeznek-kuldottek-az-idei-kurultajra.html http://www.old.szentkoronaradio.com/ostortenet

Modu Chanyu szócikk angol változatában - mely Modu kánról (i.e. 209-i.e. 174), a Xiongnuk (~hunok) egyik nagy kánjáról szól - találtam egy utalást, miszerint a Mator emberek és nyelv a magyar távoli rokona volna, s mindkettő neve Modu kán nevéből eredhet. Az erre vonatkozó idézet: "Another suggestion connects it with the name of the Magyar (Mad'ar) royal tribe of the Hungarians (匈牙利) and with their distant relatives the Mators, now extinct." Vagyis: "Más javaslatok összekötik őt (Modu kánt) a magyarok nevével (Mad'ar) és az ő távoli rokonaikkal, a mára kihalt matorokkal." Nem tudom, miért nem tanultunk erről az iskolában, illetve miért nem emlékezett meg egyetlen magyar őstörténész sem a matorokról műveikben, de egy mondat a magyarsághoz fűződő esetleges viszonyukról igencsak ide kívánkozna. Talán valaki rálel erre és talál forrást hozzá, és beszerkeszti a cikkbe. 81.183.245.214 (vita) 2016. június 27., 14:13 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.245.214 (talk) 12:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Hungarians. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080625005352/http://www.human-rights.hr:80/dokumenti/polozajnm.htm to http://www.human-rights.hr/dokumenti/polozajnm.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150916233550/http://www.mfa.gov.hu:80/kulkepviselet/AU/en/en_Konzuliinfo/hungarian_settlers.htm to http://www.mfa.gov.hu/kulkepviselet/AU/en/en_Konzuliinfo/hungarian_settlers.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060923150528/http://www.htmh.hu/021_terkepek/text027/doc_upload/hatterk.gif to http://www.htmh.hu/021_terkepek/text027/doc_upload/hatterk.gif
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061006093642/http://www.coe.int:80/T/E/Com/About_Coe/Member_states/e_ho.asp to http://www.coe.int/T/E/Com/About_Coe/Member_states/e_ho.asp#TopOfPage

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Genetic section
Although family tree is not a scientific source, it gives the best sized sample and much higher frequencies of Haplogroups N and Q, around 5% in total. While others underestimate them usually.QLao (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The gallery of personalities from the infobox (2)
See: 'The gallery of personalities from the infobox' section above which resulted in the removal of the gallery. On 13 September someone sneaked the gallery back in. This is not the way Wikipedia operates and so it needs to be removed as per the original discussion. Nigej (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There was a Proposed_repeal_of_WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES but this resulted in a "consensus to oppose this repeal proposal". See also MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES which states that "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members". Nigej (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Article Image
If you have a credible and/or valid reasons for removing the current article image, then state your business here. Unless you have a valid reason for removing the image, or contest the Magyar identity of any of the persons depicted in the image, then there is no legitimate reason to do away with the image, unless you believe you have a more appropriate photo to depict Magyar. Nagylelkű (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * See section below. Nigej (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding genetic origins
From what I understand from this article, is it correct to say that Hungarians are descendants of a preexisting populace who were conquered by Asiatic influenced (?) Magyar tribes who remained the upper class before they were completely assimilated into the wider population around 1000 AD but left behind their language and culture, comparable to the Normans in England? And that the population was further supplemented by migration from neighbouring Germanic and Slavic settlers? (Esterhase (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC))
 * You're probably roughly correct. It's a shame that the article doesn't provide a clearer explanation of their origin. I would say the closer comparison is with the invading Anglo-Saxons whose language we now use albeit with many new loan words coming from the Normans and other sources and 1500 years of change. Hungarian has many loan words too, eg the months coming directly from the Latin. There's also comparisons with King Arthur since some Hungarians like to look back on a largely mythical golden age of their supposed warrior ancestors in mid-Asia somewhere. Nigej (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It cannot provide a clearer explanation of their origin because there is no clear explanation at the moment. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then the article needs to say that in a simple way. Nigej (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * History shows us that once a population adopts agriculture, it becomes very difficult to displace them. Conquering groups of outsiders can impose their language and traditions on the pre-established agriculturalists, but they rarely ever have more than a ripple effect on the genetics of the majority population. Most European populations descend from Stone Age farmers who brought agriculture from the Middle East - Whatever hunter-gatherers preceded them were displaced or absorbed into the new, dominant farming population.

It used to be assumed that the Indo-Europeans were responsible for bringing in agriculture, as they became the dominant language group in Europe, but they, too, seem to be another small conquering group that imposed their languages. Whatever languages were spoken by the first agriculturalists in Europe seem to have been lost, with the possible exception of Basque (which may have been one of their languages or may have come later). Over the course of history, the dominant languages of many European regions have changed many times - Anatolians, for example, mostly speak Turkish today, but previously spoke Greek, which replaced a host of other Indo-European languages before that (Phrygian, Lydian, Lycian, Carian), which replaced or descended from even earlier Indo-European languages(Hittite, Luwian). We don't know much about the languages from before the Indo-European arrival. The only real exception is the replacement of the Native American agricultural populations of North America and the Caribbean with European settler descendants and African slave descendants, which occured in part due to the factor of mass exposure to disease that the indigenous peoples weren't previously exposed to, but also in part to the state of agriculture being in a rather early stage in those regions. In long-established agricultural strongholds such as Mesoamerica and the Andes, the indigenous populations were not replaced but largely assimilated. 124.119.129.46 (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hungarians. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/minorities/2._FRAMEWORK_CONVENTION_%28MONITORING%29/2._Monitoring_mechanism/3._State_Reports_and_UNMIK_Kosovo_Report/2._Second_cycle/PDF_2nd_SR_RussianFederation_en.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202023700/http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf to http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_393_en.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd%2Fcstdy%3A%40field%28DOCID+hu0013%29

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) 17:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Мађари and 匈牙利
, could you, please, summarize why you think that the expressions "Мађари" and "匈牙利" are relevant in the context of the article? I would appreciate if you could also refer to the academic works which verify your summary. Borsoka (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation: Huns/Hungarians
I've just reverted the introduction of a DAB hatnote for Huns/Hungarians here. I have great doubts that an Anglophone would confuse the two, and this is English language Wikipedia. IMHO, such a hatnote is a distraction rather than useful, however I'm open to other editors takes on the matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It would probably be good for people new to the subject, to distinguish them from each other. On the Romanians page, we have the same, but with Romani people. Huns could be useful here. TheBlueMapper (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:NOTBLUE issue, so my argument is based on WP:COMMONSENSE alone. Disambiguating 'Romanians' from 'Romani' people is common sense as regards the Anglophone world's common knowledge grounding. The Huns are understood as being an historical ethnic group separated from the contemporary ethnic groups by millennia. Readers may not know much about Hungarians, but are not going to be confused over such a huge time lapse. Again, I'm open to other editor opinions as, just to bring everyone up to speed, TheBlueMapper is the editor who introduced the hatnote in the first instance. Any thoughts from other editors? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The only Hun that any English speaker will have heard of is "Attila the Hun", although they'll normally have only the slightest inkling of who he was. I've always assumed that the reason that Attila is a common Hungarian christian name is that some Hungarians want to associate themselves with the Huns - a warlike group from Asia, even though there seems to be no connection. Having said that, I'd be in favour of removing it, since I hate these hatnotes as a matter of principle. Nigej (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I hear you. DAB hatnotes should only be used where there could be genuine confusion. Romanians doesn't also need a hatnote explaining to the reader that the ethnic group shouldn't be confused with 'Romans', an album of the same name by some muso or another, the name of a novel, or anything else that occurs to editors as being a good idea (and a way of linking orphaned articles in order to make them appear to be relevant, plus attempt to drive in some traffic). At that rate, we would be hatnoting articles into the footnotes. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you are probably right then. Let's end the argument. TheBlueMapper (talk) 08:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

One language, but two different civilization (the eastern European civilization of the Alföldicus migrant population )
I think it should be mentioned in the article: A good article about Alföld people (especially jassic-cuman area), who do not belong to the Central European Western civilization. Culturally Alföld people have only one relationship with Hungarian culture, that they learned/adopted the Hungarian language, and they use it as their mother tongue. Their culture is so different, that they belong to the Eastern European civilization. A good university textbook about it: http://tet.rkk.hu/index.php/TeT/article/view/98/195--Blemse (talk) 09:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Fringe. Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Borsoka! This is not a fringe theory, unless you are biased due to some of your hypothetical Alföld ancestors... :) It is a university textbook about sociology. Do you want to know it better than the scholars, university professors who contributed in the book? Do you have similar rank in the Scientific society like them? Have you read this university textbook ? Thank you for your reply! Az Alföld nem más, mint az északra felcsúszott balkán (kulturálisan genetikailag antropológiailag egyaránt). --Blemse (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Alföldicus migrant population? It is a fringe theory. Borsoka (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

7 images in the section Ethnic affiliations and genetic origins
I think this is too much. 123Steller (talk) 10:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole section is completely ridiculous. Hungarians is meant to be a general article on the topic. This section needs to trimmed and a separate article started for this detailed stuff. Nigej (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Some people claimed that Eupedia maps are not free, without any proofs. It uses 23andme.com database, which have stacks of samples, because this company ask mints from the mucous membranes od persons. It is a huge company with much bigger samples than the small national/university labs, so it can provide a more reliable resultst than small university labs with their few samples.--Blemse (talk) 14:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The Szeged university genetic lab collects mints only from Alföld region and from the mixed population of Budapest, which is not reliable sample collection. Both region have extremely high ratio of migrants and genetic admixture since the Ottoman wars, so the people are not really ethnic Hungarians. They even collect mints from Jassic Cuman quasi-minority area and Hajdúság/Békés area and Szeged. IT is non-sense, because these are ethnically the least Hungarian territories with Budapest. --Blemse (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the thousands of ethnic Germans, Slovaks and Croats who settled in Transdanubia obviously increased the ratio of the most ancient Hungarian genes in the local population. Please, try to understand, WP is not the best place to spread our own theories. Borsoka (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe less migrants arrived in Transdanubia than to the Alföld, which became highly depopulated among the regions of Hungary after the Mongol and Turkish attacks. That's why Alföld people genetically balkanite (similar to romanians and Serians Bulgarians. Just watch this map, based on the results FamiltreeDNA Company. The link of the map: http://i.imgur.com/0S5XFC0.png (FamiltreeDNA is the biggest company which examine customers DNA, and have the most sample, and the biggest database. Read about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_Tree_DNA --Blemse (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many times the issue of genetic studies has been discussed as being problematic across the ethnic groups articles in Wikipedia, but there has certainly been consensus that massive tracts of information (which may or may not be correct, and are written by editors who are not experts in the science) are complete overkill for articles covering the broad scope subject of an ethnic group. If readers are looking for DNA studies, what the latest word on haplogroups, etc. is, there should be an article on the subject and a very brief summary in this article. The prominent content of this article should focus on the history and culture of Hungarians, not the 'out of Africa' migration patterns. The same problem arose on Bulgarians a year or so ago. The content was moved to a dedicated article, Genetic studies on Bulgarians, as it is appropriate to WP:SPINOFF protracted content that doesn't meet with WP:WEIGHT for the umbrella article. Even so, the "Bulgarians" article 'summary' section has grown out of control, but that's an issue unto itself.


 * Is an 'ethnic identity' something that can be collected on swabs? Should this article carry reams of convoluted scientific information on a science in its infancy, and research groups only amounting into a handful of individuals in any given country? If we don't have the experts to write such highly complex content, it's not something we can wing by researching reliable sources ourselves. The subject matter meets with WP:ITSINTERESTING, but right off the map as applied to this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is a good idea to start a separate article, because I can prove very easily that Alföldicus people not only part of a different culture and civilization, but they genetically non-related to other Hungarian populations.--Blemse (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You're in the wrong place, in that case. Wikipedia is not a place to "prove" anything. Write a scholarly article, get it published, get it accepted by the scientific community and then you can come back here to summarise your findings in an unbiased way. Nigej (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Blemse was indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. 123Steller (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Kniezsa's ethnic map
Kniezsa's (1938) view on the ethnic map of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 11th century, based on toponyms is misleading. It can't be considered an ethnic map, because it excludes people that were not settled (yet). 123Steller (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you verify your above claim based on a reliable source?Borsoka (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Romanians, as opposed to the Saxons and the Székely, were not a settled people yet. They had been living in the southern periphery of the Carpathian Basin, but they did not form their own toponyms in Transylvania up to the end of the 895–1324 period. - Kristó, Gyula (2003) 123Steller (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Does Kristó write that Kniezsa's map misleading? Borsoka (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) The map is based on toponyms.
 * (2) Romanians had been living in the southern periphery of the Carpathian Basin, but they did not form their own toponyms in Transylvania up to the end of the 895–1324 period.
 * Considering (1) and (2), wouldn't you say that the map is misleading? 123Steller (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * No, because Kristó writes, the Romanians' migration to Transylvania started in the late 12th century, because they adipted Hungarian and German hydronyms. He also writes that their settlements cannot be documented before the mid-14th century, showing that they only started to adopt a sedentary way of life around that time. Please read his book before referring to it. Borsoka (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Between the two world wars there was a debate between Romanian and Hungarian scholars over the early settlements of Transylvania. In 1938 the Hungarian Slavist István Kniezsa published his work about the peoples living in Hungary in the eleventh century. In 1944 the Romanian Slavist Emil Petrovici published an article in which his hypotheses were summarized and Kniezsa's work criticized" . If you insist to keep this map, we should also mention the criticisms for this view. to keep neutrality. 123Steller (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This map has been discussed numerous times and is demonstrably incorrect e.g. for the northern part, theory about some uninhabited parts was refuted by the archeologic research and research of the early settlement structure, it was demonstrated already in 1940s that some linguistic arguments were not completely correct because of limited set of data used by Kniezsa and its correctness was questioned also by Hungarian scholars. Some Kniezsa's theories are completely outdated, other are valid and are basis for the modern research. It is simply a contemporary view with some historic value, nothing more or less. Ditinili (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If my understanding is correct, (1) we agree that the reference to Kristó is baseless; (2) there is a new debate about the correctness of the map. Yes, there are many maps whose correctness is debated. For instance, the map below is used in several articles, although its correctness is below the level of possibilities. However, we can use it, because its use is based on reliable sources. Borsoka (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Would you like to open RFC if the map from 1938, questioned already by contemporary scholars is a relible source?Ditinili (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Before any RfC is opened, would editors please be reminded of WP:BURDEN. Prior any discussions of removal, I'd certainly want to see the RS dismissing the map as being unreliable. Who are these scholars disputing its correctness? A list of refs and text 'refuting' the correctness of the map would be appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, this theory about "uninhabited" parts was presented already by prominent Czechoslovak historian Václav Chaloupecký (Staré Slovensko Old Slovakia, 1923). The theory was undermined by archeologic and liguistic research, especially by Vladimír Šmilauer, Vodopis starého Slovenska [Hydrography of Old Slovakia, 1932] and finally refuted by Daniel Rapant, e.g. in O starý Liptov [About Old Liptov], 1934. Their scholar dispute is known as a "Dispute about Old Slovakia" and was one of most notable scholar disputes in Czechoslovakia. Kniezsa published his work in 1938. In 1944, Ján Šikura published a work about historic settlement of Turiec Osídlenie Turca [Setlement of Turiec], not available to Kniezsa. In the mean time, a prominent linguist Ján Stanislav did research of local toponymes and in 1948, he published Slovenský juh v stredoveku Slovak South in the Middle Ages and demonstrated that Kniezsa worked with a very limited data set and this influenced his view on allegedly uninhabited and non-Slavic parts. In 1955, Andrej Kavuljak published Historický miestopis Oravy [Historic Geography of Orava]. All these publications led to revision of views on the early settlement structure. In 1957, György Györffy tried to improve Kniezsa's map. In 1964, 1973 and 1977 Branislav Varsik published a complex work about settlement of Eastern Slovakia Osídlenie Košickej kotliny I-III [Settlement of the Košice Basin I-III]. Regardless of the name, he did not analyse only settlement the Košice Basin, but whole Eastern Slovakia including e.g. Spiš. He again demonstrated how incomplete was Kniezsa's data set and he repeatedly criticized his work proving that we cannot rely on his assumptions. He also demonstrated that even Györffy's "improvement" of Kniezsa's map was not correct, because he ignored research results available in the time of his publication. Progress in research is significant and we cannot rely on knowledge from 1938 (!). Among others, I can reference to multidisciplinary collective work of Slovak Academy of Sciences Pramene k dejinám osídlenia Slovenska z konca 5. až z 13. storočia [Sources about history of settlement of Slovakia from the 5th to 13th century], last volume was published in 2008. From recent publications, e.g. Maslíková, Vývoj osídlenia dolného Ponitria do polovice 14. storočia [Evolution of settlement of lower Ponitrie until 14th century] in Historia Nova I- 2010-2, p. 8, "based on latest research, we have to declare without no doubts that the territory was ethnically mixed, contrary to Kniezsa's national map of Hungary, which presented it as inhabited by the Hungarian ethnic group." Above mentioned Gyula Kristó criticized Kniezsa in The peoples of Hungary in the days of Saint Stephen, 1976. According to Valéria Tóth, Debrecen University, "The method developed for the examination of settlement names by Istvan Kniezsa ... has been undermined by time and it has essentially become groundless in today’s science, in the first place because of its chronological rigidity". Kniezsa had also to explain the origin of the Slovak language, because if you look on his map, sparse and missing Slavic settlement is a serious problem for its further evolution. His theory about later Slavic migration and subsequent language integration (one of theories about its nonhomogenous origin, see History of the Slovak language) is outdated for a dozen years. It was superseded by newer theories like Rudolf Krajčovič's theory (Pôvod a vývin slovenského jazyka [The origin and evolution of the Slovak language], 1981). Kniezsa was a notable Slavist, but this is work from 1938 has been undermined by time.--Ditinili (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehensive response. Unfortunately, many of the academics you've pointed to have no English Wikipedia articles on them, but I've gone through the sources you've provided that I can access. Even at a cursory glance, it does seem clear that the map is dated and disputed, therefore its use is misleading for the reader. While Borsoka is correct that many such maps continue to be used in Wikipedia articles and galleries due to having been reliably sourced at some time in the past, dated maps are not edifying (per WP:PERTINENCE) unless they are used to compare historical information against a map depicting updated information. In a sense, this is met by being used in the gallery, but gallery captions should be short (as it currently is), and it does not address the issues of why it was/is criticised enough to justify inclusion. Any such content should be in the body of the article if the map can be understood to be relevant to the article. Per WP:IG, "The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject.". Given the context, the map cannot be "... suitably captioned.." to express its relevance without writing a treatise, therefore is redundant. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (1) I see Ditinili is still convinced that a theory which is regarded outdated by a group of scholars must be universally regarded outdated. For instance, Kristó criticized several aspects of Kniezsa's map, but he also emphasized that it is still a useful source of information. (2) Nevertheless, I agree that maps (and books) published before WWII should carefully be used in WP, if they could at all be used. (3) However, I think we should apply a general approach when tackling this problem. I am convinced that the quality of WP articles could significantly improved if a new policy could be developed on this issue. According to my experiences, editors representing obviously extreme views tend to refer to material published before WWII, thus significant part of edit wars could be avoided if a properly designed policy could be applied to this issue. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * "it is still a useful source of information" Of course, it is. No doubts, Kniezsa made a significant contribution to toponomastics, etymology, etc. However, it does not mean that this general article is a good place where some seriously dated work should be cited with potentially lengthy explanation about its (non)compliance with later research and all controversies. Since he was a notable scholar, I (again) strongly suggest to create an article about him and to move such map/information there.Ditinili (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I note that, while there is an article in Hungarian Wikipedia on Kniezsa, it has not been translated into English and developed for English language Wikipedia. I think that it would be more productive to focus on developing an article on him which may be suitable for the 'See also' section (if deemed WP:DUE). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There isn't a scholarly consensus about the ehnic composition of the early Hungarian Kingdom. For instance according to the Serbian historian Jovan Pejin the situation was completely different: . 123Steller (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously, this is another fringe theory. There are numerous place names named after Old Magyar tribes like Veľký Meder, Bátorove Kosihy, Hronské Kosihy, Kamenné Kosihy, Veľké Kosihy, Veľký Krtíš and many others. There are also numerous place names adopted from Slavic between the 10th and the 12th century, because they contain Proto-Slavic nasals, "g" instead of "h", etc (see Galanta and similar names). Also, such view is absolutely not compliant with archeology. Ditinili (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy Please read the summary of the map: ''"Although the historical study of place-names is not practised to the same extent in all countries, it is a recognized branch of historiography. It encompasses the etymology of geographical names as well as cultural and chronological variations in the naming of places. To facilitate their study of Hungarian place-names, István Kniezsa and Géza Bárczi developed an analytical framework that blends etymology, typology, and chronology. The validity of this triple approach has been amply demonstrated, thanks not only to the expertise of the two scholars but also to the peculiarity of Hungarian toponymy, which is readily distinguishable from that of any other culture. Most of the early Hungarian toponyms are derived from the names of people, clans, and ethnic groups, or from occupations, and used in the nominative case singular (e.g. Árpád, Megyer, Cseh [Czech], Ács [carpenter]). This type of toponymy appears in the earliest documents, dating from around 1000 AD. The pattern holds well into the 13th century — until the 1220s in western Hungary, and the 1270s in the eastern parts, including Transylvania..."(László Makkai, TRANSYLVANIA IN THE MEDIEVAL HUNGARIAN KINGDOM (896–1526), IN: Köpeczi Béla (General Editor), HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA Volume I. From the Beginnings to 1606, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York, 2001, ISBN 0-88033-479-7)
 * "The verifiable name layers from the early period of the conquest were subjected to study in Hungary from the 1930s and 1940s, resulting in early historical place-name typologies (Moór 1936: 110–117, Kniezsa 1938, 1943, 1944, 1960, Kertész 1939: 33–39, 67–77, Kristó 1976), the results of which are still to this day largely accepted by the research community without reservation."
 * Kniezsa's map represents a modern scholarly POV and it is hardly misleading (IMO). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Laszlo Makkai (died 1989) had never participated in any archeologic nor linguistic research in present-day Slovakia. It's clear that there are a) newer sources b) sources written by scholars who are experts in this field. Even if we accept the validity of the "analytical framework", it does not mean that the particular map is correct (!). E.g. the method could be correct, but the author had incomplete data, etc.
 * The second quote about "early historical place-name typologies" does not say directly that the map is correct.
 * In any case, similar detailed disputes belong to István Kniezsa. Ditinili (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't??? Anita Racz (by the way she is a linguist) says that the results of Kniezsa, Kertesz etc.. are largely accepted by the research community without reservation. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Jovan Pejin's research is a well-known scholarly POV or not, but I don't mind to include his map in the gallery. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Janos Bak also states that Kniezsa's place-name studies are excellent. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Which results are largely accepted? This one map? The source should directly support similar statements. It has been proven that some "uninhabited" parts were settled and this opinion is supported both by archeology and onomastics or that "Hungarian areas" were ethnically mixed, but Kniezsa simply had not enough material. This is not surprising because he published his work in 1938. We have more data and it has nothing with his qualification. The map is dated at lastfor the territory of present-day Slovakia and in this article it does not help to understand the topic. Period. Ditinili (talk) 13:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have read the map summary, but you have failed to address why the map itself meets with WP:PERTINENCE for the gallery with a simplistic summary, or why it should be retained with an extended summary for the caption. Please bear in mind that this article space needs to comply with WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have created a new article István Kniezsa. I will appreciate help of native Hungarian and English speakers. The fringe map of the author with a questionable reputation (Pejin) and the dated map (Kniezsa, 79 years old interwar work) are really not the best way how to improve this article. Ditinili (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Iryna Harpy You are right the map itself does not belong here. It belongs to the page of Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301). It was featured there but a user deleted Kniezsa's map from the article a while ago despite the fact that present-day researchers tend to agree with his results. I believe his POV is very important and definitely not a fringe opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again: which results are largely accepted? This one map? Who says?
 * We can create a short section about an evolution of views on the historic demography of Kingdom of Hungary and available sources. Then, notable historic and modern theories can be mentioned. E.g. theories of János Karácsonyi (1858-1929), István Kniezsa (1898-1965), Ján Stanislav (1904-1977), etc. The best place is probably Demographics of Hungary. Ditinili (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm failing to understand what this obsession with including a dated map is, full stop. Yes, it's been established that WP:ITEXISTS, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Finding methods of accommodating the use of a map just because it exists illustrates nothing about the subjects of the articles without going WP:OFFTOPIC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it's a dated map. Kniezsa's POV may be dubious but I assure you that there is NO better map about the demographic situation of the Kingdom of Hungary in the 11th century. The subject of the Hungarian ethnogenesis belongs to the topic of the Hungarian people. I question that it is an offtopic matter. The Slavist Kniezsa is still a frequently cited scholar in Hungarian historical, demographic and linguistic studies. As a matter of fact some people here can't stand his map because it doesn't show Slavic majority or it assumes that the Vlachs (Romanians) were not indigenous people in Hungary in the 11th century and this is the real reason why this map is purged from the Wikipedia articles. If I remember right I already tried to include this map into the page of Demographics of Hungary but it was deleted shortly. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is an old map, but it is still notable. I still think, as I mentioned above, a general policy about reliable sources written before WWII should be elaborated. Kniezsa's map is one of the few scholarly works from that period which is still regularly cited in modern academics' works. Consequently, this obsession with deleting it from several articles can hardly be understood. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Like Iryna Harpy, I am also failing to understand how this 79 years old map, questioned by several scholars and showing several areas as "uninhabited" or "ethnic hungarian" (what was refuted both by archeology and onomastics) helps to understand the topic. Ditinili (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned several times, this is an old map, but until even older maps representing an even lower level of scholarship are present in WP articles, I do not think that this one should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC),
 * It's old, inaccurate and it does not help to understand the topic, but it can be used because there are worse maps in other articles? Györffy tried to correct it in 1950s and Varsik in 1960s and 1970s, but "there is NO better map"? Ditinili (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue has been taken up at the reliable sources noticeboard. 123Steller, publishing date has nothing to do with reliability. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On WP:RSN I asked 3rd-party editors to "check the discussion" before commenting and I reiterate the request to evaluate all the presented arguments (for and against).123Steller (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

"Magyars (Hungarians) in Hungary, 1890 census"
Was there any Hungarian census in 1890? From the article Demographics of Hungary, it seems that censuses existed only in 1880 and 1900. 123Steller (talk) 09:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes there was.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC))
 * OK. I was misled my the fact that the afferent data are missing from the article Demographics of Hungary. 123Steller (talk) 10:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)