Talk:Hunor and Magor

F. Hamori, T. R. Michels Why, oh why are these two "scholars" mentioned in virtually every article related to Hungarian legends and Hungarian pre-history? They are fringe-figures, their theories are regarded as unscientific as those of Erik von Daniken. If I were to write a book about the similarities between the Hungarian word 'mag' meaning 'seed' and the name Magor and that this would suggest that Hungarians are in fact related to trees would you include my 'work' as well? - Peace be with you.

Fringe stuff
The anon above really says it all. These alleged claims are so fringy and so laughable they don't deserve even a passing mention, even under WP:FRINGE. Even a fringe view, if it is to be presented as a "notable" one, needs reliable sources. Right now, we don't even know who these two guys are supposed to be, let alone what they have published (except for some web pages mentioning them.) In particular "T. R. Michels" never seems to be mentioned in connection with Hungarian outside Wikipedia. Hamori has one whopping passing mention in google books and zero on google scholar. I'm going to remove these claims again, and the burden of evidence is clearly on whoever wishes to keep them to demonstrate these claims are verifiable and notable. We really could spare us all the trouble by applying a bit of common sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute over removed text
Hamori and other published authors are of the view that there are connections or close parallels between elements of this legend, and various Sumerian legends.

It seems this view has run up into some opposition by a team of wikipedia editors in Europe calling themselves "The Rouge" because they wish to be able to decide on the behalf of the reader, which ideas the reader is or is not allowed to hear about, and all of the numerous published authors who have written or hypothesized about possible Hungarian-Sumerian connections, fall into the category of "things they'd rather people did not read about", n0twithstanding the fact it is readily available elsewhere on the web. This is totally against the NPOV policy and the basic philosophy of wikipedia, because we are only supposed to describe ALL of the points of view neutrally, even those regarded by some as "fringe", not decide which ones to suppress or damn their memory to non-existence. Therefore I feel this case may have to go up for mediation, or even arbitration if necessary. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If these are published authors, then cite them. End of story. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, I've notified the relevant authorities. . Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronicon Pictum / Kepes Kronika
The legend appears also in the Chronicon Pictum (c. 1360) with some variations, and the name spelled Menrot; that fact should be easy to source. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Likely Contemporary Reference
The protagonist of the webcomic "Tales of the Questor" (http://www.rhjunior.com/totq/) is marked by an ethereal white stag. Later in the story the protagonist crosses the large swamp surrounding his home country on a quest into the rest of the world. He is the first of his people to do so in ages. Maybe an "In popular culture" part can be added to the article, for this, and possibly more, references. --83.119.189.36 (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

"Ogur Turks"
First of all, "Ogur Turks" is misleading, because it can be misunderstood as a reference to the Turks. It might be changed to "turkic", but the Bulgar language was not the only Oghur language, so it still be not precise. Third, the text mentions either the Bulgars as a tribe, or a language group; these two are not the same thing. And not to mention that the origin and language of the Bulgars is still disputed and not undoutebly been proven to be turkic. --Kreuzkümmel (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOR
Anon, please read WP:NOR. No reliable source has been provided for more than a month. If you think that the texts that I deleted could be verified, please do not refrain rewriting the article based on scholarly books. Otherwise, please remember WP:3RR and stop edit warring. Borsoka (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you seem to be claiming some kind of personal expertise as a Wikipedia editor, as well as the authority along with it to decide on your own that some scholar who has actually published on the subject does not meet your own unilaterally rigid standards for inclusion. A much closer look needs to be taken since this will be opposed. 172.56.18.68 (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read my above message more carefully. Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I did, you seem to be using your own special definitions of words like "scholarly" and "original research". The meaning of "scholarly" can be found in an English dictionary; the meaning of "original research" on Wikipedia strictly means original to Wikipedia, not a publication you don't like or disagree 172.56.18.68 (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I see. You say that only those sentences which have not been verified for more than 40 days and the text based on a self-published source (namely, this game ) should be deleted. It is OK for me. Borsoka (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

How can you possibly think I said any such thing and be a Wikipedia editor? Is English your native language? You are seriously putting words in my mouth. Please behave reasonably and wait for consensus before ramrodding your deletions in. I will not oppose a reasonable consensus but a more collaborative approach would help 172.56.18.68 (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I do not understand you. Do you say that information that has not been verified for more than a month should be preserved? Or do you think that a game is a reliable source? Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The text being quoted should be cited to a proper source and obviously not a game forum now that I see it, but it is apparently an authentic text from 1673 172.56.18.68 (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest you should read my messages before starting an edit war. The template "self-published source" was placed about 40 days ago. Nevertheless, the legend was added based on a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

What you are in effect doing is suppressing the Gesta Hungarorum account with the specific mention of Nimrod. Not unnoticed because the Gesta Hungarorum mentioned that. This is not justified and you are still scoffing at need for consensus 172.56.18.68 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. The Gesta Hungarorum, written by Anonymous, does not mention Nimród. The story of Hunor and Magor was first recorded in Simon of Kéza's Gesta Hungarorum (which is also known as Gesta Hunnorum et Hungarorum). Borsoka (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Anonymus certainly does mention Hunor, Magor and Nimrod, unless of course you are right and everything ever published on the topic is wrong...? 172.56.18.68 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you refer to the source of your above statement? Kristó explicitly says that Simon of Kéza was the first to write of the legend (Kristó 1996, page 118) and Anonymus's work is earlier than Simon of Kéza's Gesta. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be some inexplicable hostility on the part of you a wikipedian editor, to mention of names like "Japheth" in connection with this topic. Yet actual scholars who study these accounts and publish books about them are all well aware that they do indeed mention Japheth, therefore being≤ true scholars they know better than to attempt to cover up this mention, which would be a prominent disservice to researchers looking for medieval mentions of Japheth. Kepes Chronica Pictom is even quoted verbatim, stating pointblank the author's view that Hunor and Magor had to be from Japheth rather than Nimrod, by Janos M. Bak in "Lists in the service of legitimation in Central European sources", in The charm of a list: from the Sumerians..., p. 35-36 & fn. 172.56.18.68 (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You may not know, but there are many human being who are not driven by hostility and other negativ feelings. Please read WP:NOR: as soon as you add a reference to an academic work to the text taken from the Illuminated Chronicle, the text will be fully in line with that special policy. Otherwise the text should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

See, this is precisely what I am talking about. Actual scholars who cover the topic are well aware that Japheth is mentioned and discuss this fact as may teadily be verified to the satisfaction of any reasonable person bothering to look up secondary sources like the one I just spoon fed you there. But evidently admitting that the texts really do mention "Japheth" and yes this really is of interest to scholarship, doesn't sit well with your alternate reality perhaps? But rather than quietly removing facts you are uncomfortable with for whatever reason, it was noticed, more eyes are needed to what's going on here, therefore it seems more opinions will be needed to establish consensus instead of a solitary editor claiming to be the sole authority over the published scholars 172.56.18.68 (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC) And for your information (again) the term NOR on Wikipedia means research original to a wikipedian unpublished elsewhere. That would be like if I came up with the idea these texts mention Japheth all by my little self. NOR is not a magic word you can use in every instance to make all opposition melt away. 172.56.18.68 (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. WP:NOR is a magic world: all sentences which contradicts to this basic policy of our community will sooner or later be deleted. As I mentioned I do not oppose the mentioning of "Japheth": if his mentioning in this context is of interest to scholarship, as you stated above, you can easily find a reliable source which makes mention of him. Otherwise, this is only original research. By the way, I have never stated or claimed that I am an authority over published scholars. Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)