Talk:Hungarians
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hungarians article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
1,400,000 Hungarians in Slovakia
[edit]Is a complete fabrication, last census says 422,065.. the "cited" 2011 census was 458,065 and not 1.5 million, fix this 178.41.220.144 (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Protected edit request on 30 July 2022
[edit]Recently there are many vandalism by Slovakian anonym IPs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/46.34.234.18 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarians&diff=1101311283&oldid=1101309253 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungarians&diff=prev&oldid=1101305099 — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod (talk • contribs) 11:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Why do the most Slavic ethnic groups have a higher frequency odf Asian ancestry than modern Hungarians?
[edit]See the frequency of Haplogroup Q and haplogroup N: https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml --Pharaph (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Current "Origins" section reflects specific Hungarian nationalist POV and cites heavily biased source.
[edit]The current version of the "Origins" section of this article reflects the opinion of a specific branch of Hungarian nationalism that seeks to deny and obfuscate the well-established Ugric origins of Hungarians in favor of promoting stronger ethnolinguistic links with more prestigious Turkic/Mongolic/far eastern ethnic groups, often based on fabricated or distorted data.
"The relatedness of Hungarians with the Ugric peoples is almost exclusively founded on linguistic data and has been called into question. It is not backed with testimonies in historical sources or the results of natural science research." - the cited source behind this passage is a study written Borbála Obrusánszky and Angela Marcantonio. Obrusánszky is a well-known figure within Hungarian far-right, Turanist circles and is academically primarily known for strongly pushing the personal POV that Hungarians possess Mongolian cultural links/origins, she is strongly associated with the ethno-nationalist bi-yearly event called Kurultáj and its nationalist parent foundation, the Magyar Turán Alapítvány, and used to further closely associate herself with the far-right party Jobbik, which used to be under the leadership of Gábor Vona. Obrusánszky is currently the Hungarian ambassador in Mongolia thanks to her personal connections to a high-ranking member of Viktor Orbán's cabinet.
That the "(Uralic origin of Hungarians) is not backed with testimonies in historical sources or the results of natural science research" is an oft-repeated sentiment by Obrusánszky and similar Turanist historians who used to exploit the scarcity of genetic data and lack of studies that set out to directly compare the Magyar conqueror population and Ob-Ugrians by attempting to claim that the lack of genetic data is sufficient counter-evidence against the well-established linguistic evidence for the Uralic ethnolinguistic origins of Hungarians, we now know that this is untrue, as this 2019 study which directly compares Magyar conqueror samples with contemporary Ob-Ugrian ones has uncovered a direct genetic link between the two populations: https://edit.elte.hu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10831/50896/Y-chromosomal%20connection%20between%20Hungarians%20and%20geographically%20distant%20populations%20of%20the%20Ural%20Mountain%20region%20and%20West%20Siberia.pdf?sequence=1 . This data is supported and cited by several other studies, some of which are cited further down in this article.
The very specific invocation of "natural science research" (rather than "genetic research", or "archeogenetics") in the context of the original text and broader Hungarian pseudohistory reflects a common Hungarian pseudo-historian rhetorical tactic/device, it's meant to prime the reader to dismiss the conclusions and methods of linguistics by presenting the conclusions of the "soft" sciences (such as linguistics) as being more or less based on empty fantasizing and not as compelling and rigorous as that of "hard" sciences, so that whatever conclusions they end up drawing from their distorted and/or false genetic data they can claim it's sufficient to completely displace the linguistic data because it's (their own arbitrary, nationalist narrative) evidence based on "natural/hard science". 91.137.177.37 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- For a confirmation that Marcantonio does not represent mainstream Uralic linguistics, see Uralic languages#Uralic skepticism. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have long been considered about pan-Turanism on Wikipedia, however, at least some of the sources do appear to be reliable without any further investigation (with the last one published by Cambridge University Press, for instance). I'd suggest the problem is probably a matter of WP:WEIGHT- the mainstream perspective of Uralic origins has been completely shut out of the article, at least in the first subsection. Perhaps my colleagues Austronesier and Andrew Lancaster would be able to weigh in/help - I'm a bit too busy to look into the problem myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- The last source, Berend 2013 (archive.org) is indeed a good one. The problem here seems to be that the first paragraph argues against the linguistic theory, and this is then supported by a reference to Berend, taken out of context. She actually argues against all theories in which Hungarian ethnicity exists centuries before the Conquest. The situation would be better if the first paragraph introduced the whole migration narrative, not just linguistics, and the second paragraph criticized it. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Some section's of the article need to be better summarized because are too detailed without clear point, which is already explained in detail in other articles dealing with specific topic. As for the raised issue by the IP, the Hungarian conquerors undoubtedly were a mixture of Turkic and Ugric people. They certainly weren't mainly of one or the other origin, so claiming that one part of the ancestry is "well-established" meanwhile the other is "fabricated" is violation of factual reality and WP:NPOV.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have long been considered about pan-Turanism on Wikipedia, however, at least some of the sources do appear to be reliable without any further investigation (with the last one published by Cambridge University Press, for instance). I'd suggest the problem is probably a matter of WP:WEIGHT- the mainstream perspective of Uralic origins has been completely shut out of the article, at least in the first subsection. Perhaps my colleagues Austronesier and Andrew Lancaster would be able to weigh in/help - I'm a bit too busy to look into the problem myself.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)