Talk:Kunság

[Untitled]
there are still some kunsags currently living in hungary whom speak their native language. in one of turkish radio television (trt) broadcasted documantery, a hungarian kunsag prayed in his native tongue which is somewhat intelligible with anatolian turkish.

=English or Latin?= English: Cumania? I don't think so. Why would there be an English word? The form is Latin. I'll update this unless, please revert it with explanation if you believe it to be correct. Leegee23 (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Magyarization and Romanianization
,

"Magyarization": where I've made the modification it had no connection to the 18th century, even if the fair use would be dated in appropriate cases to the 19th century.

"Romanianization": please do not be bothered, I've considered the same way inappropriate "Romanianization" to that timeline but since I don't know the specific Cuman affairs in Moldova regarding this instantly (but I do for Magyarization), I was afraid to do any thourough change...I was hoping (and I had right) that you will solve the problem properly. Thus instantly I was only daring to do the unlinking to indicate the problem. I promise in case next time I will openly ask for a solution if I will be unable to treat something entirely.

Thank you for your understanding!(KIENGIR (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC))


 * Hi, and no worries. I see your point, but personally I would prefer using both terms for the neutral as well as politically charged contexts. In fact, if you go to the Magyarization article, you will note that it (though woefully under-researched) uses the term for even older timeframes and even more neutral contexts, including the voluntary Magyarization of Cumans. I'm overall agnostic on whether we should use the terms wherever, but I would urge for some consistency across articles. Dahn (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I know the article, but it strictly expresses for which time the term is meant, that section is a reference to the middle age without any binding connection, just to compare with other timeframes and conditions, or a possible prelmininary or history that would connect in a way to the phenomenon.


 * I understand your personal standpoint but I cannot agree on those other cases the usage since especially the term "Magyarization" (and obviously becuase of what it is really referred and meant to) has a negative connotation primarily, and unfortunately there some anti-Hungarian pseudo-historians who force and and apply the usage of this term to the whole period of the Kingdom Hungary, beginning with St. Stephen as a forever state coercive policy that is totally false. Thus by favorizing your point it would cause a total controversion and anachronism and by this without wanting support extreme views. I.e. the "Hungarus Consciousness" should not any means to be confused with any kind of Magyarization, that anyway sounds as a coercive, organized and systematic process. I would draw your attention to this discussion [] (Hungarians also known Magyars) where not especially this, but important related subjects and concept are discussed and reflected, and without expertise the real meaning and evaluation may alter to a bad direction.


 * Accordingly, I'am following the systematic usage of Magyarization (whenever/weherever I met with it), appropriately when the government policy of the 19th century is reinforces. Regarding (partially) similar/related topics or the voluntary or any result of the adoption of the Hungarian identity or "Hungarus Consciousness", etc. earleir I avoid it because the result is not the by-product of a coercive process or similar that primarily the meaning would suggest or refer that was anyway carried out in an other era. Consider, in case also Austrianization/Habsburgization, Wallachization/Moldavianization, Frankization or any funny terms could be manufactured to any former existing entity whenever a settlre or their descendants would without any reason adopt or declare an identity where they live, etc. Just because there are some countries where later national coercive policies became in action we should not reflect it to the past, beucase by non-higlighted nations such terms never even existed or were invented, but the same happened in the old times.


 * Consequently, Romanianization I consider totally inappropriate the same way (not even having a common, unified Romanian identity in the Wallachian and Moldavian Era) and very much carefully treat anything with it if not really it would be a case earlier where really someone would be forced to have a Romanian identity, generally the question until the birth of the United Principalities could be hardy raised (disclaimer: not the Romanian identity that preceded the formation of the United Principalities, but I am referring to the unified state with the it's special "new/developed" Romanian identity). Cheers(KIENGIR (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC))


 * Let's first of relax, as I'm not proposing anything but consistency; if the consistency is to remove references to "-ization" in all articles about old pre-nationalism subjects, fine. As a side note: this practice of preemptively avoiding terms because they are "controversial" is a pet peeve of mine, so I will respectfully ignore that part of your argument entirely. What would matter for any assessment is if X or Y term was used by secondary sources in reference to that framework, and they pretty much have. One advantage of using both terms consistently would be precisely that they become neutral and no longer charged; claiming verbal taboos is not going to help anyone's case. The argument on both sides is that acculturation occurred, but that it was also voluntary, and I believe the articles should reflect that, as should our usage. And yes, the term is modern and manufactured, but so are all terms of art plunged back into the period they reference, such as feudalism -- which doesn't stop us from using them. Dahn (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, but feudalism did not raise much controversy, when terms by some circles are used deliberately in a negative manner back time although they did not happen really. As you could seen in my argumentation or the reference on the other talk page, these cases are not taboos, better accurate and careful usage to avoid any controvery or misunderstanding. As closing remark, I reinforce I fully support consistency in the proper time and framework, shall it be any "-ization".(KIENGIR (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC))

=NEO-CUMANS have Serbian, Romanian, Bosnian ethnic ancestry, their culture is not similar to the Hungarian Central-European culture, but to the Eastern European and Balkan culture, theeir late nomadic transhumance life= Borsoka and some other people with ancestry from Cumania region try to delete relevant informations about neo- Cumans. For example their ethnic overlapping with Serbs, Romanians Bosnians. Maybe because of racism? And theeir ashamed their Eastern European/Balcan material culture, which is very different from the standard Central European Hungarian culture. Maybe he is ashamed it, because he considers the Eastern European as "inferior" culture?

So they decided to delete well referenced sentences about neo- Cumans. HE deleted my picture about a cuman man, because he looks too mongoloid.(Again because of racism)

C'mon Borsoka, can you clarify yourself from theese serious charges? --Delivert (talk) 16:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Nem fogok vizsgálatot indítani ellened, mert hatástalan, de tűnj már el végre, te idétlen. Engem szórakoztatsz a kis buta üzeneteiddel, de nem tudod megállni, hogy más szerkesztőkkel is bunkó legyél. Arra is képtelen vagy, hogy megértsd, mi a baj a szerkesztéseiddel. Egyetlen mondatot nem tudsz úgy beiktatni egy szócikkbe, hogy az megfeleljen a legalapvetőbb szabályoknak. A wikipedia célja nem az, hogy a nyomorult életed minden fekete gondolatát felbüföghesd magadból. Ha nem tudsz eltakarodni, mert elvonási tüneteid lennének, akkor használd az én személyes oldalamat, de hagyd békén a többi szerkesztőt. Ígérem, ott minden üzenetedre válaszolni fogok, hogy meglegyen a kis örömöd. Ezen az oldalon nem vagyok hajlandó ezután szóba állni veled. Borsoka (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Látom, személyeskedésben nagy vagy. De itt cáfolnod kellene a referenciákat, amiket tudósok írtak. Vagy elletéziseket kellene bizonyítanod, és utána törölhetsz. Az nem működik ám, hogy pusztán azért mert valami nem tetszik neked, akkor önkényesen kitörlöd. Igen, a kunságiak többsége balkáni népek keveréke, ami meglátszik gyakran a külsejükön is. Szégyenled? Mi is a baj ezzel? Talán rasszista okok? Igen a Jászkunságiak materiális kultúrája nem közép-európai és nem hasonlít a magyar materiális kultúrára. Ezekről mint egy magyarul beszélő, ám Kelet-Európai/*Balkáni kultúráról beszélhetünk.--Delivert (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Utóirat: A te Szegededről. Nem hogy hálásak lennétek a magyaroknak, hogy az árvíz után Szegedet újratervezték, újjáépítették, és a pénzsegélyeinkkből egy európai kinézetű város lett. Előtte még a főtéren sem nagyon voltak emeletes házak, tehát elég idegen putri hely volt, dehát nincs mit csodálkozni, magyarul beszélő de balkáni eredetű emberek  balkáni ízlésű városa volt  az árvíz előtt.--Delivert (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Kerestem referenciát arra, hogy többségük késő nomád volt, (Transhumance) csakhogy öregbítsem azt a hihetetlenül "kifinomult" kultúrájú jászkunsági világ hírét :)))))--Delivert (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Delivert,

I was able to find your cited source on-line. The one and only mention of the Kunság region is this passage about the extensive animal husbandry of the Great Hungarian Plain:

“2. System of external and internal pastures on the Great Hungarian Plain (in the regions around Hortobágy, Kiskunság and Nagykunság): for example Debrecen had external pasture in Hortobágy where the animals (among them sheep, which were not milked) were kept from spring to autumn. The herds returned to the fields of the town in autumn, where they could graze on the stubble-fields and the grassy clearings of forests.”

And this practice does not constitute transhumance. Because transhumance is:

“A transhumance megtelepült életmódot folytató népesség pásztorkodási módja, amely egész évi legeltetésen, a nyári (hegyi) és a téli (síksági) legelők ritmikusan váltogatott használatán alapul. A transhumance fő állata a juh, kisebb számban a kecske. A téli és a nyári legelők közötti távolság, a migrációs útvonal hossza esetenként több száz km is lehet. Azonban a legelőkön és a vándorlások alkalmával csak a pásztorok követik a nyájakat. Nem tartanak velük családok, népes közösségek, mint a nomád társadalmak esetében. A kétlegelős, transzhumáló (legelőváltó) állattartás az ókori Rómában az 1. évezredben már ismeretes. Töretlenül élt tovább a Földközi-tenger térségében a feudalizmus századaiban is. Legnagyobb jelentőségre valószínűleg az Ibériai-félszigeten tett szert a 13–14. században. Spanyol telepesek honosították meg Kaliforniában, Argentínában, Chilében, sőt Közép-Amerikában trópusi változatát is kialakították.

Magyarországon a Balkánról a Déli-Kárpátokba felhúzódó vlach csoportok honosították meg. Nyaranta a havasi legelőket keresték fel, ősszel pedig felhajtották nyájaikat a Duna mellékére és Dobrudzsába, később Moldva és a Tiszántúl is telelőhelyük lett. Az osztrák vámnaplók tanúsága szerint a 19. század elején még virágzott {601.} az erdélyiek teleltetése Moldva Havasalföldjén (Veress E. 1928; Földes L. 1968, 1982: 372–374; Paládi-Kovács A. 1993b: 75–76, 255–257). “

Source: http://mek.oszk.hu/02100/02152/html/02/298.html

And a short description of transhumance in English:

"Transhumance, form of pastoralism or nomadism organized around the migration of livestock between mountain pastures in warm seasons and lower altitudes the rest of the year. The seasonal migration may also occur between lower and upper latitudes (as in the movement of Siberian reindeer between the subarctic taiga and the Arctic tundra). Most peoples who practice transhumance also engage in some form of crop cultivation, and there is usually some kind of permanent settlement.

Transhumance is practiced in those parts of the world where there are mountains, highlands, or other areas that are too cold to be inhabited and utilized for grazing except in summer. An extreme form of transhumance is that of the Kohistanis of the Swāt area of Pakistan, who range between altitudes of 2,000 and 14,000 feet (600 and 4,300 m). Most Kohistani families possess houses in four or five different settlements, and at any one time of the year nearly the whole population is concentrated in the altitude belt appropriate to the season. Their economy is based on a combination of the cultivation of grain on terraced fields—mostly irrigated and plowed with bullocks—and the breeding of oxen, buffalo, sheep, goats, and donkeys."

Source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/transhumance

Regards,

Maghasító

Maghasito (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The nomadism was important in their weird foreign Eastern European culture read:

http://www.hnp.hu/en/szervezeti-egyseg/CONSERVATION/oldal/grazing-animal-husbandry-on-the-puszta-i

"Ecsedi writes (in 1914) that the shepherd preserved the nomadic life-style for the longest time. He was the one who rambled all over the seemingly infinite puszta. As a herdsman with his flock, he does not have a cover, he spends the night under the sky with his sheep. Only his clothing protects him against the rigours of weather. But he keeps the natural covers in mind, the edge of the reed-bed that gives shelter from the wind, or the wood-plantations called "Remisz". But since the spreading of the more sensitive Merino, which requires a roof at the time of the fell, the shepherd also looks for a cover. He builds some kind of protecting building for the stock and for himself from the materials found on location, that is mostly reed. The early documents from the 15th 16th century refer to some kind of a building by the term szállás.

Two main groups of shepherd buildings can be distinguished. One concerns the buildings made for the stock and the other group refers to those made for the shepherd."

--Delivert (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I really do suggest that before getting into this sort of debates users scroll down to the article section on "Ethnicity and culture", which covers the state of research on whether Cumans (or neo-Cumans or whatever) are genetically distinct from other Hungarians (spoiler: they aren't), on whether there are any distinct traces of Cuman culture surviving today (there are, barely), as well as the embrace of Cuman identity as a political statement (something which is as legitimate as it is unfalsifiable, because any group of people's claim to X identity can never be fully validated or fully rejected, and must simply be recorded). That should spare us the walls of text and other such grievances. And with that, I welcome Hungarians to the great guessing game that surrounds borderline ethnic identities in just about every surrounding country: are Moravians Czech? are Rusyns Ukrainian? are Moldovans Romanian? are Macedonians Bulgarian? are Bosniaks Croats? are Kashubians Polish? and so on. Dahn (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Please be very very aware that wikipedia does not publish original research, and least of all original research in rant form. Also familiarize yourself with WP:SYNTH, please. Dahn (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Cuman ethnic minority existed until around the 1970s
https://kisebbsegkutato.tk.mta.hu/uploads/files/olvasoszoba/intezetikiadvanyok/Regionalis_identitas.pdf

MTA considered the Cumans as a Hungarian speaker group, who have a firm ethnic minority identity (like all other ethnic minorities in Hungary). Only the uniformization of communism could erase this group and their minority identity from Hungary. The socialist urbanization mass population movements erased them in the 1970s. It must be mentioned in this article.

https://kisebbsegkutato.tk.mta.hu/uploads/files/olvasoszoba/intezetikiadvanyok/Regionalis_identitas.pdf --Noconteos (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Stubes99, stop editing WP articles. WP is not your platform, that is why you were banned from the community years ago. Borsoka (talk) 16:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)