Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary

Hungarian Spectrum

Hi, there is an ongoing debate about the Hungarian Spectrum. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hungarian_Spectrum

If You are interested, please weigh in!

Bias in Puskás Akadémia FC article

In the Puskás Akadémia FC article there is a section entitled "Trivia" that leans on political propaganda and makes claims without citing sources. It would behoove us to remove this section for the sake of neutrality, as the author is clearly displaying bias with his comments.

Draft article on Artavazd Peleshyan

Please would a Hungarian-speaking editor assess the abandoned draft at User:Gabor.illes.tutajos/sandbox? This is a translation into Hungarian about Artavazd Peleshyan, an Armenian filmmaker. Please use it in Hungarian Wikipedia if it is any good, then blank the user page as WP:STALEDRAFT. – Fayenatic London 11:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The Idoru

Hello, anyone with knowledge of reliable Hungarian entertainment news sources, and how to search through them, might consider participating at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Idoru. Thanks. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 20:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

The deletion nomination for that band's article has now been withdrawn, but the article itself (The Idoru) still needs massive help from any Hungary expert that would like to contribute. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

CfR Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia

This CfR is relevant to this WikiProject. Anyone interested can participate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 March 27#Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Battle of Baia

Battle of Baia has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 21:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

• Delist: The article is quite biased. It does not present the Hungarian viewpoint only the Romanian one. Many times it also rewritten "decisive Moldavian victory", which is nonsense, because it is not "a decisive victory" when the Hungarian army move back home after the battle, morover the king was wounded, the Moldavian army did not pursuit the Hungarian one, and when Matthias was in Transylvania he got begging letter from Stephen according to contemporary sources, and Stephen became his vassal. At least 6 contemporary Hungarian sources (what I know) from the court of King Matthias claim that the battle was Hungarian victory and the attacker Moldavians were killed and fleed (I presented quotes from original sources in the talk page above). Hungarian historiopraphy claim many things depend on historians: it was Hungarian victory, Stephen's propaganda boosted with "victory of Moldavians", it was a draw, etc, none of them presented in the article. It is also biased that the article use image from a Hungarian chronicle which say it was Hungarian victory, which means using image from the book is ok but using the content is not ok, strange. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing Hungarian related contents and strange modifications on Hungarian related articles

Volgabulgari started to defacing or added strange things on many Hungarian related contents with rude comments, he engaged in edit war, first I started to discuss with him, then he also claimed on other user's talk page that "Hungarian users keep violating Turkic pages" if reverting his edits, his Hungarian related unexplained-unsourced-unreasonable content removals: User talk:Beshogur#Hungarian reverts

However I see Hungarian or Hungarian related topics not really "only Turkic articles":

• [1] Hungarian prehistory If he does not like it, if it is true or not true, but vast amount of old sources states this,

• [2] Cumans I restored when he unreasonably removed a huge Hungarian related content. He said that as reason of removal [1] "I don't think anyone wants to read too long Hungarian history in Cuman page" However we have long history of Cuman-Hungarian events, battles, and about Cumans who settled in Hungary. For example Britannica does not agree with him when it writes about many the Cuman-Hungarian things: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Cuman

• [3] He made edit war and deny that the Kuns the settled Cumans in Hungary are related to Cumans.

• [4] Onogurs He removed Hungarian contents from here, however many historians find connection with Hungarians and Onogurs who settled in the Carpathian basin after the Avars.

• [5] Eastern Hungarians He name it "pseudosciency" Of course he is unable to show any reliable academic source for his claim Talk:Eastern Hungarians#Location

• 6 Kuns He named the Kuns in Hungary as "Hungarian Tatars" Talk:Kuns However "Hungarian Tatars" historical term does not exist, Kuns means Cumans in Hungarian not Tatars.

• [6]

OrionNimrod (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I did not notice you were frigle about my rude comments. I apologize.

[1] Exact nature of this connection is still a matter of debate among scholars. It is ineed written but potraying Hungarians as "Scythians and Huns" due to this chronicles is false.

Hungarian chronicles do suggest a connection between the Magyars and the Scythians and Huns. Important to note that these chronicles were written several centuries after the events they describe, and they were heavily influenced by political and cultural factors of the time. Magyars have a rich cultural and historical heritage that is distinct from that of the Scythians and Huns, and it is important to avoid oversimplifying or conflating these different groups.

[2 While the Cumans did have significant contacts with the Hungarians, particularly during the 11th and 12th centuries, their impact on other regions and cultures was also notable. Page was dying with Hungarian history.

For example, Cumans played an important role in the history of the Kievan Rus', Seljuk Khanate and Byzantine Empire, and they had significant interactions with the Mongols and the Ottoman Empire. But Cuman impact of these was only few sentence while Hungarian part was overfilled.

[3] Kuns in Hungary who claim to be descendants of the Cumans are not considered an independent ethnic group recognized by any official government or international organization. They are just a branch of Hungarians and Cumans settled in Greater and Little Cumania. We do not know how much ethnic Cuman actually exists. Also, they don't carry any language today. I was the one who created the Kun page and cited them in Cuman page in the first place. Later I deleted it for these reasons.

[4] Finding connection is different. The page used to claim Hungarians and Onoghurs were related which is false proven by genetic and linguistic researches. You used to sent me a link suggesting Hungarian and Onoghur genetic is resemblence. Onoghurs and Hungarians are two distinct groups with different origins and linguistic affiliations, although they share some similarities. Genetically, Onoghurs and Hungarians would have had different genetic profiles due to their distinct origins. We should know that both groups have likely undergone genetic admixture with other populations throughout their histories. Therefore, it would be challenging to pinpoint specific genetic differences between the two groups.

[5] If you read the sources cited it claims these place located in East of modern-day Bashkortoston. Magna Hungaria of Friar Julian claims that the Bashkirs and Magyars could speak and understand each other. However, linguistic and ethnic identities can be complex and multifaceted, and cannot be reduced to a simple binary of being "Turkified" or "Ugranized." Bashkirs are a Turkic ethnic group while Magyars are Finno-Ugric. Friar Julian's Magna Hungaria claim linguistic and cultural connections between the Bashkirs and Magyars, complexities of linguistic and ethnic identities cannot be reduced to simple categorizations.

[6] "Tatar" is an umbrella term for Kipchak-Turkic ethnic groups including Cumans. "Hungarian Cumans" or "Hungarian Tatars" are not historical terms. Kuns were a nation dead few centuries ago and these descendants are claims to be Turkic. For instance, Crimean Tatars formed by Cumans in Crimea and started to call themselves Crimean Tatars but Hungarian Cumans were a small minotority who are dead today and descendants of these people today still un-recognized. Cuman self referred themselve as Tatar in Codex Cumanicus. If we'll go by "historical names" Kuns doesn't appear anywhere today and un-recognized. Volgabulgari (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with OrionNimrod.

[2] Citations are generally avoided in introductions, just as in the introduction of Hungarian prehistory. The sources used throughout the article surely contain enough antique attestations. Saying this—that the contemporary literature considered the Hungarians to be Scythians and Huns—is not 'pure propaganda' and doesn't state that this parallel is correct. Actually, many other nomadic nations have been connected to the Scythians and Huns, for example the Bulgars.

[2] Since most people of Cuman ethnicity were in and in the surroundings of the Kingdom of Hungary, the weight on Hungarian-related history of them is not remarkably uneven. If the situation bothers you, add content covering them in modern-day Russia, for instance. But don't delete relevant and notable information, especially because (or at least I think) they are less extensively described when they were on the fetterless steppe.

[3] I don't know if the 'Kuns' are listed as an official ethnic group, but they are definitely related to the Cumans who settled there. This population has clearly been assimilated into the Hungarian nation, but they are the descendants of those tribesmen who lived here nevertheless.

[4] Read the cited source. It states that Onogurs have been connected to Old Hungarians. I would also emphasize that no scholars believes that Hungarians are a 100% Finno-Ugric nation. They believe that the Hungarian people have formed in the territory of the modern Northwestern Federal District thousands of years ago, and since then lost most of its 'Finno-Ugricness'. Only a meager part of our vocabulary, heritage, language is thought to be related to the Finnish.

[5] Your personal opinion doesn't matter. Magna Hungaria was said to be in today's Bashkortostan. You can't overwrite that because you think that would illogical. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi Volgabulgari,

To inform other users: My converstaion here with Volgabulgari: User talk:Beshogur#Hungarian reverts

1."Hungarian chronicles do suggest a connection between the Magyars and the Scythians and Huns. Important to note that these chronicles were written several centuries after the events they describe, and they were heavily influenced by political and cultural factors of the time."

A lot of German, Byzantine, Italian... etc (I know and I am able to show a lot of old sources) contemporary documents much earlier than the Hungarian documents claimed the Hungarians and Huns, Avars and Scythians. For example: Leo VI The Wise Emperor of Byzantium (886–912) described the Hungarians this way (Book: The Taktika of Leo VI) “The Scythian nations are one, so to speak, in their manner of life and their organization; they have a multitude of rulers, and they have done nothing of value, living for the most parts as nomads. Only the nation of the Bulgarians, and also that of the Turks [Hungarians], give thought to a similar military organization, which makes them stronger than the other Scythian nations as they engage in close combat under one commander.” (By the way Byzantine literature named the Hungarians as Turks)

But this does not matter it is true or not true, because medieval sources claimed this, and this is fact and you removed this content what the medieval literature claimed. (According to genetic researches it is true, to my personal DNA test the closest ancient groups are the Scythians according to mytruancestry, and this is the average Hungarian result according to the site, but this is not the topic now)

2 You wrote: "Unnecesary to add very long historical relations of Cumans with Hungary. I simplified the page then add relations with Georgia, Seljuks and Byzantine. If I didn't delete it, history section of Cumans would kill the whole page." WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT For example I see Britannica think different than you and you removed very important contents huge texts: (35 000) So you think that you have right to decide this? Bascially you admit that you vandalised the article. The articles has many chapters, readers can jump among them. It is not our problem that you do not like when Cumans and Hungarians have many recorded events, things. You can add the missing contents if you miss something, but please do not vandalise removing huge contents because just you do not like it. If you have issue with some sentences that is the talk page when editors could agree and collaborate, but you did not use it, basically you destroyed the works of other editors in the past years, you kept only 1 sentence in the Hungarian-Cuman history, even you removed in the main text that the mother of a Hungarian king was Cuman lady.

3+ Talk:Kuns#Hungarian Tatars? + Talk:Kuns#Existence? Even other users recognized that you just copy pasted the Cuman article, it should be talk about only Cumans in Hungary or merge to the main Cuman article, but it is nonsense to invent new terms like "Hungarian Tatars".

4 Do you know any Onogur genetics? Show us! Modern genetic study say the Hungarians mixed with Onogurs: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8478946/ "Moreover, it is suggested that Hungarian conquerers together with the Turkic-speaking Kabars moved in and integrated the “Avar” (including Onoghurs, Proto-Hungarians etc.) people."

Other one: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1112/1112.2013.pdf "The Hungarians are Ob-Ugrian speakers, though they probably have at least some historical connection to Turks (the name Hungarian probably derives from Onoghur, a Turkic people of Central Eurasia in the early middle ages, Golden [1991])" And there are many similar idea by historians: Onogurs who settled in the Carpathian basin after the Avars.[3]

5 You deface the sourced content with your own idea about the location, it is falsyfing what the source claim, I requested but you did not provide any source that Magna Hungaria was east from Baskiria. Well the Hungarian origin is quite complex, it is not our problem that you deny the genetics the modern science:

Archeological mtDNA haplogroups show a similarity between Hungarians, whose homeland is around the Ural Mountains, and Bashkirs; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6534673/

Y-chromosome haplogroups from Hun, Avar and conquering Hungarian period nomadic people of the Carpathian Basin

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5

"The Conqueror-Bashkir relations are also supported by historical sources, as early Hungarians of the Carpathian Basin were reported to be identical to Baskhirs by Arabic historians like al-Masudi, al-Qazwini, al-Balhi, al-Istahri and Abu Hamid al-Garnat, latter visited both groups at the same time around 1150 AD and used the term Bashgird to refer to the Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin. In addition parallels were found between several Conqueror and Bashkir tribe names and Bashkiria has been identified with Magna Hungaria, the motherland of Conquerors"

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/597997v1

"Composition of conquering Hungarian paternal lineages is very similar to that of Baskhirs, supporting historical sources that report identity of the two groups."

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-020-0683-z

"the ancestry of the first Hungarian royal dynasty traces to the region centering near Northern Afghanistan about 4500 years ago and identifies the Bashkirs as their closest kin, with a separation date between the two populations at the beginning of the first millennium CE." OrionNimrod (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing Hungarian related contents

@Grin Hungarikusz Firkász deleted the article Magyar Polgári Együttműködés Egyesület in the hungarian wikipedia - aktelőző 2023. május 20., 08:53‎ Hungarikusz Firkász vitalap szerkesztései‎ a 12 794 bájt 0‎ Hungarikusz Firkász átnevezte a(z) Magyar Polgári Együttműködés Egyesület lapot Cikkjelölt:Magyar Polgári Együttműködés Egyesület lapra átirányítás nélkül: Lásd a vitalapra írtakra, azóta sem volt ezt érintő változtatás, hátha a feljavítóba kerülés lendületet ad neki. visszavonásköszönet This is clearly censoring without any cause. Elekes Andor (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Grin Egy érdemi megbeszélés lefolytatásához szükséges lenne annak tisztázása, hogy eddig hányszor próbálták feltölteni a Magyar Polgári Együttműködés Egyesület lapot és hányszor törölték. Fontos kiindulópont lenne, hogy ez tízszer fordult elő vagy akár sokkal többször is. Az is érdekes lenne, hogy a számtalan törlés indokaként mi volt megadva. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elekes Andor (talk • contribs) 13:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Nem értem. Ez az angol Wikipédián volt? Ha nem, miért ide írtad? grin ✎ 13:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Grin Nem. A magyar wikipédia szócikkét kezdtem: a "Magyar Polgári Együttműködés Egyesület" szócikket. Hungarikusz Firkász eltüntette. Javasolom hogy folytassunk érdemi vitát arról, hogy indokolt-e a szócikk törlése. Kérem hogy a vita megfelelő előkészítése érdekében állapítsuk meg, hogy hányszor próbálták megírni a szócikket és hányszor került törlésre. Ez a lap angol ugyan, de a magyar vonatkozású tartalmakra vonatkozik. Az MPEE Magyarország legjelentősebb NGO-ja, nem kormányzati szervezete, amely 1996 óta (ténylegesen 1995 óta) működik: van annyira fontos, hogy megérdemel egy vitát arról, hogy meg kell-e akadályozni a róla szóló szócikk megírását. Elekes Andor (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Tisztáznék néhány csúsztatást, aztán itt nem is folytatnám tovább, mert, ahogy Grin is megállapította, nem ide tartozó téma, továbbá a itt már minden ki lett tárgyalva:

1. A szócikk nem lett eltüntetve.
2. A szócikk nem lett törölve.
3. Senki sem akadályozza, hogy a Magyar Polgári Együttműködés Egyesületről szócikk legyen. Erről nincs mit vitázni, mert senki sem akadályozza a szócikk létezését.
4. A mostani cikkjelöltté minősítést leszámítva egyszer sem lett törölve a lap, és gyakorlatilag a mostani sem nevezhető törlésnek, mert átirányítás nélküli átnevezés történt, mivelhogy a névterek közötti átirányításokat rendszerint nem tartjuk meg. Pláne nem szócikknévtérből másik névtérbe mutatót.

Nem hiszem, hogy érdemes itt bármin is vitatkozni, egyszerűen csak javítani kéne azt, ami javítanivaló. Ennyi szövegelés helyett már réges rég megtörténhetett volna.Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hungarikusz Firkász azt állítja, hogy nem volt korábban számos esetben törölve a szócikk. Én ezt nem hiszem el neki, számomra ő nem szavahihető. Pártatlan, felelősségteljes, valódi személyazonossággal rendelkező személy kellene megállapítsa azt, hogy hány alkalommal tüntették már el ezt a lapot. Eltüntetés az is, ha cikkjelöltté minősítve tüntetik el. Eltüntetés az is, ha kevésnek vagy rossz minőségűnek minősítik a feltöltést. Vagy valami értelmezhetetlen, zavaros kifogást húznak elő. Például azt, hogy milyen kapcsolatban van a Polgári Gondola vagy a kormányfői beszéd a Magyar Polgári Együttműködés Egyesülettel. Sajnálatos, hogy gondot okoz megérteni azt, hogy sem a Polgári Gondola, sem a kormányfői évértékelő nem szervezet. Ha pedig nem szervezet, akkor csak a Magyar Polgári Együttműködés Egyesület által szervezett esemény lehet. Bonyolult ? A Magyar Polgári Együttműködés Egyesület Magyarország legnagyobb nem kormányzati szervezete (NGO), nem indokolt az eltüntetése. Elekes Andor (talk) 19:51, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Teljesen mindegy, mit hiszel, vagy mit nem hiszel el nekem, én hivatkozásokkal alátámasztottam, hogy nem volt számos alkalommal törölve a szócikk (mindenki ugyanezeket a hivatkozásokat tenné eléd), te pedig -- amellett, hogy azt sem vagy képes értelmezni, ami szemed előtt van, mert az megzavarná a kis elméleteidet -- fordítva ülsz a lovon. A bizonyítási teher rajtad van, ha azt állítod, hogy a lap számos alkalommal törölve lett, akkor neked kell ezt az állítást bizonyítani. Viszont úgy tűnik, téged nem a szócikk érdekel, hanem csak az, hogy veszekedhess, és csak az, hogy rám hegyezd ki a dolgot. Egészségedre! Ha a szócikk érdekelne, már rég javítottad volna, de te inkább egy napja veszekszel. Egy értetlen és zöld troll vagy, semmi más. Innentől kezdve nincs mit mondanom neked, főleg nem itt, ahol semmi köze ennek az ügynek ehhez a helyhez. Egyedül Grint sajnálom, hogy ebbe a hülyeségbe belerángattad. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2023 (UTC)