Open main menu

The pope approved ?Edit

"The Pope approved Hungarian settlement in the area when their leaders converted to Christianity ..."

Aproved? APPROVED???? Nobody asked that bloke! Not even the traitor steven! REMEMBER! Steven had VETO power in the papal election! So did all Magyar kings! The pope was liking steven's aaammm ... just to make him be part of the catholic empire. Hungary was THE! major force in Europe at the time.

Let us all remember, in 907 the united German forces attacked the Hungarians. "Ugros to be eliminated" was written on their flags. At Pozsony - Bratislava today - the whole German army was annihilated. The survivors run to Ennsburg where king Louise confronted the Magyars with his fresh army. King Loiuse's army was annihilated too and the Hungarians only stopped at the Ens river.

But this is 'conveniently' ignored to be able to say that "Pope approved Hungarian settlement".

The article is full of mistakes, lying by omissions and anti-Hungarian biased. It needs to be totally rewritten by an unbiased author! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


please add link to "see also" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hungarians, also known as MagyarsEdit

Hungarians, also known as Magyars: this is a wrong assumption to start with. The adjective Hungarian in English does not differentiate between the inhabitants of Hungary and ethnic Magyars, but these are two different concepts. I will edit this entry when I have a little time on my hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leiduowen (talkcontribs) 06:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

No way, they are not different concepts, since the two terms are overlapping. Primarily Hungarians refer to ethnic Hungarians - of course the same time every inhabitants or citizens of Hungary without ethnicity, as it is true for any other terms like Germans, English, Norwegian, etc. - while Magyar is secondary used term (more explicit reference to ethnic Hungarians). Thus "Hungarians" primarily contains and meaning "Magyars". As I recall, you already commented once to my talk page with a huge nonsense regarding Lajos Kossuth and invented the "Ugrian" term for him, along with many pseudoscientific POV pushing. (KIENGIR (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC))
What is quite clear is that the "adjective Hungarian in English" means someone from Hungary. A person from Romania, even one who speaks Hungarian, is in normally English, a Romanian. This page is incorrectly called "Hungarians", meaning something different - "ethnic Hungarians" or "Hungarian speakers". The word Magyar is pretty-much unknown, except to stamp collectors who know that "Magyar Posta" stamps are from Hungary. Nigej (talk) 13:08, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Nigej, my further addition is, yes historically, normally and obviously in every context it has been the meaning "from that country", because it was defaultly assumed that the country you came from you carry it's culture, langauge and origin (ethnicity). Later on nowdays, as the concept of legal residence, citizenship and other developments became common, as modern concepts of nationality and ethnicity, obviously there are cases where nationality (= modern citizenship) not necessarily equaled with ethnicity, though broader back of history the national conscience also many times were not identical to ethnicity.
Thus the original term of meaning like Hungarian, German, English, Norwegian did not change, but in some cases because of the latter may be identified and interpereted differently. Thus I don't agree the article's name would be incorrect, since also in the common speech "Hungarians" refer to the country and their whole nation (all citizens), primarily Magyars as it is true from Germans, English, Americans, Finnish, French, etc., it would be totally odd to put "ethnic" before since then there would be an article for "Hungarians" and for "ethnic Hungarians"? Totally mistaken and false concept would be, since the root is the original meaning when ethnicity and nationality was not separated.
P.S: moreover this is pushed by those who by this separation try to corrupt the identity of some historical Hungarian persons who also considered themselves Magyars, though having foreign origin, the very possible Slovak user pushes a local concept where before the 20th century they sisytematically call every Hungarian as "Uhorksy", while after WWI they call every Hungarian as "Magyar" in order to distinguish the classic Kingdom of Hungary of the post WWI Hungarian state and with this to manipulate history and identity back in time, fogetting that Hungarian has been an exnomyn and Hungarians always called themselves Magyars, before and after and most of the world also before and after referred us as Hungarians. Very interesting, that this is not pushed regarding Germans, where the same way these circles could force and push the term "Deutsch" (as Germans always refferred themselves) and manipulate and confuse the same way, but of course there are not so many counter-interested parties like in the case of Hungary and her classic territories and history.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC))
Not exactly. The term Hungarian can refer to ethnicity (Magyar) or a nationality in the Western sense (= a citizen of the state). However, this name was historically used also by other people (Slovaks) for a different reason. They did not have a special ethnonyme for Hungarians (cca until the 18th century), so they used it (very naturally) to refer themeselves. A very short note that this term could (historically) refer to non-Hungarian people can make this article better and definitely not worse. We cannot assume that an average English reader is an expert on the history of Central Europe. Otherwise "Hungarians, also known as Magyars" is OK. --Ditinili (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
This is one of the worst articles on Wikipedia, so it can hardly get any worse. The average reader will find that Hungarians live in Hungary and speak Hungarian before moving on to an unintelligible section about the origin of the word, then unnecessary history, followed by meaningless drivel about haplogroups, before finding mini-maps which mean nothing to them and finally a few random pictures. Surely Hungarians deserve better. I know that this sort of articles is mired in politics but we all need to remember than only 1 in 500 of the world population are Hungarians and the article should mean something to the other 499 who, as you say, know little about central europe and its history. Nigej (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Ditinili, I don't know why you wrote "not exactly", my argumentation was correct and I also expressed the same like you (though more detailed and thorough mentioning all the background infromation). And of course these "other people" could be any ethnicity existed, not just Slovak.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC))
I see, you probably meant it to the P.S. section. I wanted to express, there are some goups, views to try to misuse this, but above I exactly expressed the same you did in your second sentence. Also by Russians, Germans, Poles or any similar article the reference may be also true for ethnic minorities in any historic sense that was the subject of the country with a common national identity even if having different ethnic origin, we cannot put before every denomination i.e. "ethnic", since it is obvious that primarily what is meant for.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC))
I mean - we should distinguish between a) Hungarian: the liguistic/ethnic identity (Magyar) b) Hungarian: the cultural identity which gradually disappeared mainly in the 19th century (Hungarus consciousness, not to be confused with Natio Hungarica - the historic multi-ethnic political nation) c) Hungarian: a citizen of Hungary. I think that a) and c) are clear for an average reader, but not b). I suggest something like: "the term can refer also to historical cultural identity regardles of linguistic differences (wikilink: Hungarus or Hungarus Consciousness or something similiar).--Ditinili (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
a) & c) are the basic interpretation that holds for every nation having a country. b, could be also true for other countries/nations, i.e. nobility of German states or Austrian Empire also had Slavic origin members who fully integrated and even adopted the consciousness and national identity...I mean Hungarus consciousness was mostly along with Natio Hungarica and had not necessarily connection to noble status - similarly to other countries -; in other words Natio Hungarica gradually had Hungarus conscience...of course in the 19th century as various national awakenings took place, this has been transformed, but not necessarily with such clear delimiters.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC))
Well, we agree that the term Hungarian could mean also something else than the linguistic identity, that it was a separate phenomene and it gradually disappared during the 19th century. We can write an article about the topic and add a short note to this article for EN reader who has absolutely no idea about this concept and can be potentionally confused.--Ditinili (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the reader now would be yet confused, since if the editor on the top is not raising this - who does it becuase of his personal support for a fringe POV already presented in my talk and the Lajos Kossuth page-. Though I would word it like so: "Historically the term also cover people with Hungarus Consciousness; a Hungarian national-cultural identity without speaking the Hungarian language and/or having Hungarian origin".(KIENGIR (talk) 09:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC))
Return to "Hungarians" page.