Wikipedia

Talk:Székelys/Archive 3

< Talk:Székelys
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Irji2012 in topic Szekely vs Hungarians
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Fake statement

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This statement "A significant population descending from the Székelys of Bukovina lives in Tolna and Baranya counties in Hungary and in certain districts of Vojvodina, Serbia." is not true! Please give source for this statement. Significant székely population lives only in Transylvania (Kovászna, Hargita and Maros county).--85.66.129.125 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

After the Word War II, thousands of Székelys were resettled from Vojvodina to Baranya and Tolna counties. It is a fact. (Moreover Székelys lived in Baranya county and Western part of the Carpathian Basin in the Middle Ages)Fakirbakir (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Being accurate is not enough, it needs to be verifiable, and there are good reasons for this policy. Andrewa (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Back-and-forth moving

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

If you move the page itself, please at least have the decency to move the talkpage with it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I'd like to direct our attention to WP:RM/CI, specifically the statement "Don't close requested moves where you have participated in the move survey". Also have a look at the non-admin closure section. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 1

Latest comment: 13 years ago41 comments16 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: close duplicate discussion: this move is also being discussed in the next section down in this talk page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Székely → Szekelys — Relisted. fuzzy510 (talk) 07:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC) székely (plural: székelyek) is the denomination of the ethnic group in Hungarian. The corresponding English word, that uses English ortography, is Szekely (plural: Szekelys): [1]. I'd like to ask the judging admins to consider the arguments themselves, not the numbers of voters from each side (Iaaasi (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Oppose per WP:TITLE (titles should be in the singular) and I see no evidence that the accent is ever intentionally left out. 86.6.193.43 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is a false argument: all the pages that treat ethnic groups are at the plural form: Huns, Khazars, Alans, Slovaks etc. É is a letter of the Hungarian alphabet that does not exist in English(Iaaasi (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
Support, I can support this idea, however I am unsure about this form 'Szekelys'. It is a naturalized English word? If It is not, we should use this form 'Székelys'. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Support all pages about nations are either plural or use the format "[...] people" as in French people (but that's used mostly for disambiguation purposes). "Székely people" is a valid alternative, but there's no need for disambiguation so Szekelys or Székelys should be the preferred form. man with one red shoe 23:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I'd support "Székely people". I'm unsure about the plural, as there is no such thing as Frenches or Englishes. Why is there then Székelys? Qorilla (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. They are normally referred to in English as "the Székely". I have never heard them referred to by any knowledgable person as "the Székelys". Székelyek would be technically correct but too obscure. No particular objection to "Székely people". There is no particular consistency about naming of articles about ethnic groups: consider Jews/Finns, Comanche/Iyer, French people/Tuareg people. - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment (reply for the above against voters) I've also provided a link above: [2], so the usual plural form is Szekelys. The plural form without the desinence -s, is also used, but more rarely:
-"the szekelys were" has 189 results on google books
-"the szekely were" has only 26 results on google books
-"the szekelys have" has 26 results on google books
-"the szekely have" has only 2 results on google books
  • Support per nominator; Adrian (talk) 06:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Here, on English Wikipedia, Romanian spelling is used, if the article is about any kind of Romanian related stuff; see:Sămănătorul to ascertain. So I do not see any reason why we should use English spelling, if the article is about any kind of Hungarian related stuff.--Nmate (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment I think we can keep the Hungarian spelling (because It is not naturalized English word-in my opinion), but Székely people or Székelys would be really better form to the article.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
On Google Books the spelling Szekelys is preferred to Székelys (Iaaasi (talk) 08:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC))
Comment form of Székelys has 14, 600 results.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment form of Szekelys has 27, 100 results. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Interesting numbers, but I am not convinced. It is not English word.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The figures tell everything, maybe you are subjective because you are a Hungarian. An alternative would be to use the form Szeklers, that is preferred on Britannica (Iaaasi (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC))
If the English or non-Hungarian editors do not use diacritic It will not mean that it is unnecessary. Google can not check nationality of writers/editors. It is name of an ethnic group. The diacritic absolutely no harm. Szeklers is the German name of the Székelys. Székelys call themselves Székelys. It is not an English word, the question is whether it is naturalized word or not.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems that even the English spelling does not appear on the search window: [3], when clicking a particular result the form Székelys can be found, like here: [4], so probably the version with é is better (Iaaasi (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC))
Frankly, It would not matter if it was 'Szekelys'. English keyboards can not use charachter 'é'. English editors are always confused because of this. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Support per nominator. --Olahus (talk) 10:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose We should really keep it at "Székely" rather than moving to "Szekely" or "Szekler." I also propose (rather less urgently, given that so many authors have invented or adopted the strange form "Székelys") standardizing the plural form, in the article title and throughout the articles on Wikipedia, as "Székely." The word simply hasn't been adopted fully enough into English to use fully English orthographic conventions like the replacement of "e" with "é" (a totally different letter in this case) or the tacking-on of a final "s"; however, "Székelyek" is definitely too "Hungarian" and foreign a form to ever catch on, and I've never seen it in the writings of any native English speaker. In my experience "Szekler," the German form, is a vestige of 19th-century scholarship and is on its way out. If the Székely become a major point of discussion in the English-speaking world, and the Englished form "Szekely" (or "Szekelys") starts to become accepted - that is to say, if English speakers stop seeing it as an adopted foreign word and start seeing it as a native English word - then, of course, I would support a move to "Szekely" or "Szekelys." As it stands, moving this article would be like moving the respective articles to "Veszprem," "Pecs," "Bacau" or "Targu Mures" - or even the hideous "Motes" for the people around Câmpeni (Campeni?) - which we can all agree would be replacing a precise, uncontroversial form with a bizarre and imprecise multilingual hybrid. To recap: when "Szekely" becomes a fully naturalized English word (like "Bucharest" has, for instance, and like "Timisoara" hasn't), we should move the article. That day has not come, and is not likely to in the near future. Keep the article where it is. Hubacelgrand (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment The plural form Székelys is already widely used, even by Hungarian authors (you can check Google Books) (Iaaasi (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC))
Iaaasi, I believe you (I have noticed this myself, as I said above), which is why my major argument isn't with the "s" at the end of the word (which I still think is ugly and incorrect, and which the most careful authors tend to avoid, but which is a battle that's already lost) but with the replacement of "é" for "e." "Székelys" would probably be fine - "Szekelys" or "Szeklers" would not. Hubacelgrand (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I've already said above that I support the same version: "so probably the version with é is better", I don't understand why you voted against in these conditions (Iaaasi (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC))
I voted against the original proposal (Székely to Szekelys) and still would. I will not argue against the move if you keep the é. Sorry for the confusion. Hubacelgrand (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's start over, I think we can pretty much agree that the current version is not compliant with Wikipedia practices, we have three variants: "Székelys", "Szekelys", or "Székely people", any of this variant is better than the current one. I think there are valid arguments for each of the variant, I don't think the policy points clearly to one of these three (prove me wrong). Let's have a straw poll on these versions and pick the one that's accepted by the most editors. man with one red shoe 20:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

  • What Wikipedia practice is this not compliant with? Speaking as the person who started Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups, I can definitely say there is no particular consistency about naming of articles about ethnic groups. Again, consider the examples I gave above Jews, Finns (both plural); Comanche. Iyer (both singular); French people, Tuareg people. Or is there some other practice you have in mind? That said, I'd have no problem with "Székely people", I just don't see that a move is necessary. In any case, wherever we put the article, everything that's gone by should be available as a redirect. - Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected, there's no clear practice, but it does look to me like the majority, Comanche notwithstanding, plural or [...] people is the most used format, since most of the people are fine with "Székely people", I think that has become my favorite form, it also parallels nicely Székely land. man with one red shoe 23:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
man with one red shoe, I think a poll would be unnecessary. The things are clear:
- I've proved above that the most utilised plural form is "Székelys" ("Székely" is also used, but more rarely)
- "Szekelys" - this form is incorrect, I had the sensation that this is the Englished form, but I was misleaded
- "Székelys" and "Székely people" are perfectly equivalent, so any of them can be used with the same right (Iaaasi (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC))

Oppose As per Hubacelgrand. I note that purely linguistic issues should be bravely left for native speakers instead of being decided by Romanians and Hungarians.Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The most adequate denomination would be Szeklers since it is used by Enciclopaedia Britannica. Furthermore, this is the eldest denomination used in English for this population. The designation "Székely" isn't English, but Hungarian and it is not on the Hungarian Wikipedia here, but the English one. Please keep this difference in mind. I think a new request should be made and the users should chooose between the 3 terms: Székely (Hungarian denomination with Hungarian orthography), Szekelys (Hungarian denomination adapted to the English orthography) and Szeklers (English denomination) --Olahus (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Britannica alone is not sufficient grounds. The argument "this is the eldest denomination" holds no water, as we are supposed to present the most modern consensus view, not the old one. Our article on India is not entitled "Hindoostan", and our article on Sami people is not entitled "Lapp people". Also, since when is there a rule against using diacritics? Székelys would be perfectly acceptable in English as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
"Szekler" is not an English denomination. "Szekler" is a German denomination that happened to gain some currency in English because the first time most scholars (in any language) treated the issue seriously, the Székely were under the administration of Austria or Austria-Hungary. Sadly, Britannica is behind the times on this one. Szekler is not an acceptable compromise in my view; the "Hindoostan" comparison made me laugh, but it's very apt. (If you are really looking for ways to make article titles more accessible to English speakers, perhaps you'd have better luck changing Ojibwe back to Chippewa - to take just one of many examples). Furthermore, it has been fairly well-established before now that the problem with the article's title, if there is one (which is itself debatable), is with the plural/non-plural form, not with the é or the word. As for adaptation to English orthography, I for one would argue very strenuously against moving articles to "Timisoara" or "Bacau" or "Targu Mures," which would be the proper locations for those articles under that precedent. Hubacelgrand (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that the "Székelys" is not Hungarian, I am all for diacritics and special characters (and I think that's Wikipedia policy too) when we use a term from another language, but since the plural form Székelys is not Hungarian is almost like asking to have an article named "Buchareșt". I came to the conclusion that the most elegant solution is "Székely people" (especially that we need to differentiate from "Székely land". man with one red shoe 05:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the options, "Székely people" is probably the best solution if we really need to move the article. Personally I still think it is fine exactly where it is, at Székely (as Jmabel helpfully points out, there is no real standard for ethnic group titles being plural, singular, or singular + "people") - "Székely people" might suggest to some that the Székely are a totally separate ethnic group rather than a subgroup of Hungarians - but as long as we keep things clear in the intro, it would be an elegant solution around which we might be able to build a consensus. Hubacelgrand (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, you are right, "Székely people" might suggest that they are a totally separate ethnic group. man with one red shoe 14:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both forms seems to have some currency, and it's hard to decide which is the more prevalent, and we seem to have rough consensus on that. So, as a tie-breaker I'd go with the established policy of a general preference for singular nouns. I admit there's also a distinct preference on my part, as a native English speaker, for the singular in this case, unlike in the case of huns. but this is a peculiarity of English and may be just my own dialect. Andrewa (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose (sort of!) as Google seems to give:
  • "the Székely" = 38,000 "the Székely " = 1,570,000
  • "the Szekely" = 11,000 "the Szekely " same
  • "the Szekelys" = 9,940 "the Szekelys" same
  • "the Székelys" = 9,940 "the Székelys " = 2,070,000
In this case I suspect that "Székelys" is more correct here. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
I think the same; I've moved the article to Székelys (the initial proposal, Szekelys was not very appropriate). If anyone contests the move with valid reasons, he is free to ask for a RFM discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 09:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC))
As User:Dontbesogullible did not answer my reply, I moved back the article to Székelys. The version Székelys is supported by THE INSTITUTE OF HISTORY OF THE HUNGARIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES too(Iaaasi (talk) 09:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2

Latest comment: 13 years ago27 comments9 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved: no concensus in over 5 weeks. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Székely → Székelys —

The plural form without the desinence -s, is also used, but more rarely:
-"the székelys were" has 189 results on google books
-"the székely were" has only 26 results on google books
-"the székelys have" has 26 results on google books
-"the székely have" has only 2 results on google books (Iaaasi (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC))
NOTE: The nominator has been banned from the project by the community. See here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
This proposal needs to be considered on its merits, not on the merits of the person who made the proposal, if this is closed or not given enough attention because the user was banned it would make a good example of ad hominem judgement here on Wikipedia. (besides, couple of people already supported it, they are not banned and could make the same proposal) man with one red shoe 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Please take note that my comment was not a !vote, but just a bit of information that some may find relevant, especially since the nominator effed up the revision histories of these pages with a cut-and-paste move (a problem which I am still seeking rectification for) after judging "consensus" in his last RM for this page. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

*Support but see comment below.

Comment As before, I have no vested interest in which title is chose, apart from trying to get as close to the most correct for Wiki purposes.
There were comments made previously about the plural aspect, we have Russians and Germans but not tings that would be ambiguous, so no "Poles" for the Polish people.
As such I can only state my previous opinion that according to google searches there appears to be a slight favour towards Székelys.
As the problem is not going away it seems that consensus may have to fall between those who are insisting on each differing spelling to find a common ground and go for that one if all else fails. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - If the majority of sources use that form, maybe wikipedia should use it too. Adrian (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - To me the plural works better, it's strange to use Székely as a collective noun in English. man with one red shoe 20:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - shouldn't the move announcement be placed in the article too? I see few comments here... man with one red shoe 20:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, it should. Iaaasi didn't put the notice on the page when he started this request, so I've just now added it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The requested move was clearly opposed by a majority opinion some two weeks ago. It is not appropriate to open the

the discussion over and over again until the opinion of Iaassi and fellow Rom,anian editors prevail. This is nothing more than picketing around to create an impression that a new consensus was reached which is in reality non-existing any more than two weeks ago. Rokarudi--Rokarudi (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Not really, this request is different from the previous one. Please check it out. About the "who will prevail" - this is not "Romanians against Hungarians" :), don`t get this joke in the wrong way, and I am the only Romanian editor who commented here so far. Also, please read this User Hangakiran case , 2. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 07:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • :Adrian's right, the previous proposal was "Szekelys", which I wouldn't vote for either, for the fact that diacritics are of utmost importance in Hungarian. Also, it's no wonder that Adrian's the only Romanian user here, since Iaaasi has been blocked.... CoolKoon (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is obviously contrived, an attempt to game the system from a user who has been banned (and needed to be banned a long while ago). Consensus is identical to the previous move request (i. e. "oppose"), so let's all give this article a damn break. Dahn (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm not even sure why was the article named "Székely" until now. It's very unnatural in English to use "Székely" in plural form, since it isn't used like that in Hungarian (it has its plural form, like every other word: Székelyek), so Székelys seems to be a logical choice to me. CoolKoon (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as per previous discussion where Google gave:
"the Székely" = 38,000 "the Székely " = 1,570,000
"the Szekely" = 11,000 "the Szekely " same
"the Szekelys" = 9,940 "the Szekelys" same
"the Székelys" = 9,940 "the Székelys " = 2,070,000 and in this case I still suspect that "Székelys" is more correct. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

*NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: Due to some overzealous cut-and-paste moving, much of the page history for this page is still over at Talk:Székelys. Before moving this article, please merge the page histories so that they are not lost when the redirect is deleted to make way for this page. Thank you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

P.S.

  • (See verdict above) I later reconsidered and moved the page to Székelys. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I have moved the page back to Székely, as the move to Székelys was the result of approaches to me from a user which I later found to be banned. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous, do you take the requests on their merit or on who makes the request? Isn't that an ad hominem argument, appeal to authority (or lack of it in this case). The points that the banned user made were correct, there were 5 votes for the move and 2 against, the votes against didn't even list valid reasons, one was accusing that this is a Romanian conspiracy (it boggles the mind how can that be the case) and the other one (actually a Romanian) was complaining that the request is the same as the one before (it isn't) and that it was made by a banned user (ad hominem argument). How is this not consensus? Yes, I would have liked to have more participants to the discussion, that's why I made a comment and asked to have the notice posted in the article, but the decision "no consensus", the reversal of it, and now the reversal of the reversal are very strange decisions. What happened, did somebody approach you privately and chastised you for taking advice from a banned user? man with one red shoe 12:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Hey, relax. If it bothers you that much, then just file another RM. Given the consensus that you find evident, it should not be hard to pass, or? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but we are not discussing here my level of relaxation. man with one red shoe 17:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
        • As for being hard or easy to pass, I would like to know what would the score need to be, if 5 against 2 is "no consensus". Any why open another one when people already put their arguments in this page? man with one red shoe 17:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
          • OK, whatever. I'll file one, since you don't seem to want to. It's best to have this move done without the stigma of a banned user anyway... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 3 (hopefully the last...)

Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


Székely → Székelys – The pluralised version seems to be the most common form of the name in reliable sources:

-"the székelys were": 189 results
-"the székely were": 26 results
-"the székelys have": 26 results
-"the székely have": 2 results. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


  • Support - Sincerely I am rather confused with all this "move or not to move" :)) , but if my memory serves me well I votes yes the first time.. Adrian (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I still fail to see the reason the last vote was proclaimed as "no consensus" whereas the voting at Béla Lugosi with MUCH LESS consensus has been accepted. Could it possibly be the work of the Communists/Capitalists/Zionists/Imperialists/Nazis/Democrats/Republicans/bourgeois freemason conspirators?! But still, I don't really know why did anyone push for singular in this case at all. It isn't even used that way even in Hungarian, where the singular "székely" is used as an adjective as well. It's the plural form which's used as a demonym in Hungarian as well i.e. Székelyek. Therefore I think that the "Székelys" form is MUCH more appropriate than the singular form used currently. NOTE: This is not to say that I'm fine with the diacritic-less version per se, because I'm definitely NOT. So if you attempt any tricks on my vote, I'll have to summon my army of the Rouge Admin Cabal, which'll wipe out ANY opposition from the face of WP. So beware! Har! -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
    • I just looked at the Lugosi discussion, and it looks to me like an admin making his own judgement call rather than evaluating consensus. Regardless, that discussion is only tangentially related to this one. The last move request had a certain pall cast over it due to the nominator's being banned while it was in progress. Hopefully this one will not have such problems. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I know that it's only marginally related, but still. The admin's decision was fishy in BOTH cases I dare to say. Yeah, it's quite ironical that the previous vote was initiated by Iaaasi, who was subsequently blocked. Even more ironically this seems to be the ONLY thing I could agree on about with him and unfortunately he couldn't escape the block due to his attitude. Hopefully you won't meet the same fate and thus the voting will be successful this time ;) -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Just remember "consensus" means WP:ADMINWILLDECIDE. —  AjaxSmack  16:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • As a member of the Romanian conspiracy against Romanians, support per nom . —  AjaxSmack  16:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Same reason as before. To me the plural works better, it's strange to use Székely as a collective noun in English. Funny thing, since this apparently is a Romanian conspiracy, the Romanian term for Székely(s) is "secui" and has the same form for singular and plural, unlike most of the names for other nationalities. man with one red shoe 19:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

From Romania to Mongolia

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

On 22 October 2011 an article appeared in Turkish newpapers about Levente Borbely who walks from Romania to Mongolia to attract worldly attention about Székelys. Borbely claims that Székelys are descendants of Hun. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you can add it to the article if you find a suitable reference. Adrian (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Why, is Borbely an important person, do we care about his opinion? man with one red shoe 14:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
No, but he is trying to attract attention about Szekely people - and that is relevant to this article. I am not saying that there should be anything special.. and etc, but if this information is true and with reliable references it should be in the article, in one little sentence. PS: Borbely isn`t really a nobody, as I can notice he is an author of a book about Szekely people (if I understand it right from the article). LINK Adrian (talk) 15:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Szekely vs Hungarians

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Census data indicate the number of Hungarians in Szekely Land. Calling Szekely all the Hungarians in Szekely Land is original research. If a Hungarian born in Hungary lives in Csikszereda, he is not a Szekely Irji2012 (talk) 09:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

We have to write what the census states. What are the exact figures about Szekelys in the census? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh I see the problem. The Szekelys chose to be Hungarian in the census. It is a complicated. We can only use estimations in my opinion. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I replaced Székelys with "the Hungarians in Székely Land" for a more accuracy Irji2012 (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Székelys/Archive_3&oldid=1136383597"