# Talk:Hungarian prehistory

I have just removed for the second time this fringe theory. Quite possibly we should have a section on fringe theories, but until then, or until we produce a consensus here that the idea of "Sanskrit origins of Magyar" has a toehold on scholarly acceptability, it has no place in this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Supported. There is no place for fringe theories in this article, thus the theories on the Sanksrit, Sumerian, Egyptian, etc origin of the Hungarians can be deleted without any further notice. Borsoka (talk) 09:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The original express purpose of this article was to give space to fringe theories so they could appear somewhere without taking space on another article.  This is perfectly acceptable since wikipedia reports on fringe, rather than brushing it under the  carpet. That is exactly why this article was created.  So I have to disagree that there is no place for fringe on this article, or that any fringe can be censored and deleted suddenly without further notice.  The main problem with the Sanskrit theory though, is that it seems to be unheard of until this year, 2012. Time will be needed to see if such a new idea will find any quarter of acceptance with other authors. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
So, should we have a section in this article on "Fringe theories of Magyar origins"? As Til Eulenspiegel says, there's no lack of material. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, at least there is a discussion on this issue now.  I agree that Hungarian pre-History is full of fringe theories.  The reality is though that until now ANY theory of Hungarian origins was a 'fringe' theory since no one had any concrete proof, just ideas.  The long standing popular belief of a Hungarian origin east of the Ural Mountains (accepted because of politics not science) has strongly been disproved by the lack of a genetic marker in Hungarians that marks the northern Uralic migration.  The genetic haplogroup that 60% of Hungarians belongs to is south Asian in origin.  I have spent the last three years of my life working on the linguistic origins of the Uralic languages, and I consider it very narrow minded to simply delete any idea that does not agree with yours.  I respected other views in the article even though in my opinion they are pure fiction, and left all other portions unchanged.  Does not three years of my work deserve the same respect?  In the 19th century it was proven that Hungarian and Sanskrit are the same grammatically, and is accepted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences as fact.  Unfortunately when vocabulary was looked at only a casual resemblance was found.  I discovered that this was due to the fact that Uralic languages did not 'inherit' their words with those words changing over time.  Instead they moved into the region and adopted words based on observational qualities of the object.  For example the Hungarian word for father 'apa' is not a sound change of the Sanskrit word for father 'janaka' but is instead based on what a father does and is the Sanskrit word meaning 'the act of sowing seed', 'vApa'.  From this I was able to deduce the rules that governed the adoption of Sanskrit words, ie that all Sanskrit words are reduced to a maximum of two syllables.  If Wikipedia is going to brush under the carpet any idea that is new or does not support the status quo then it is guilty of the same outdated 19th century political thinking that gave birth to the incorrect assumption that Hungarians originated east of the Ural mountains in the first place.  I had followed the Wikipedia submission guidelines.  My entry was factual and properly cited.  Has Wikipedia decided it is the judge of what research is worthy of being published and will censor all opposing views?  Is Wikipedia only about supporting ideas they agree with?  Then the statement "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is nothing more than an advertising slogan as it has become a private club.  Frank Sandor 23.16.83.15 (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
We are here to write an encyclopedia, that is, to document scholarly consensus (or disagreements) based on recognized methods. This doesn't imply that your theories are wrong, only that the time to include them in the mainstream account will be when they achieve an appropriate degree of mainstream scholarly acceptance. I look forward to their progress. In the meantime, what do other editors think of the idea of a section on fringe theories? There are several of them, and mainstream accounts do include mention of them if only to dismiss them. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
First of all, I fully agree with the idea that there is no room for censorship in WP. On the other hand, we should follow VP guidlines, including WP:NOR and WP:SOURCES. Yes, of course, we can assume that Hungarians descended from Sumerians, Egyptians, Sanksrits or from any nation of the world or the Galaxy, but when editing WP we can only use reliable sources. Reliable sources do not support these theories, therefore they are to be deleted at once. For example, if we think that the Hungarian language is a variant of Sanksrit we can write of our theory in a reliable source, and afterwards the theory can be included in a WP article, otherwise it cannot be included. This is not censorship, this is racionality: without these rules, for example, any of us could create long articles of our own views on evolution, God, history, politics, neighbors, friends, teachers or we could write articles on our favorite teddy bears, jeans, flowers: "Borsoka's thoughts on evolution", "Borsoka's view on the pancake Aunt Rozália's sister-in-law made sometime in the 1990s or maybe in the the late 1980s". So I still suggest, that first our views should be expressed in academic works, than they can be included in the relevant WP article. Borsoka (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for mentioning WP's policy on "No Original Research", Borsoka.  Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit struck by the comment on the "east of the Urals popular belief" and talk about presenting fringe theories.  I was the editor who modified WP in this and maybe a few other articles to the "west of the Urals" theory based on sources, not beliefs.  I don't know where the "east of the Urals" view comes from yet I had left it in this article when I expanded the Urheimat section because I thought it important to give readers a sense of the debates occurring about the article subject.  There are no simple answers about Hungarian prehistory. That said, I would not really be in favor of a fringe theory section because it would become a listing of them all. --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I see the point, but on the other hand they are notable in themselves, especially in the context of Romantic nationalism, and we probably should list them all somewhere. Setting up another article for them would rightly be deprecated as a POV fork. Could I ask you to reconsider? Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid these theories even together do not qualify notable enough to make up a separate article. I am soure that Hungarian historians would be offended, if these "theories" were mentioned in any article connected to "Hungarian historiography". Therefore, maybe the little information on these "theories" can be added to a general article of "fringe theories in history". Of course, first of all we need reliable sources based on which these theories can be mentioned in any WP article. Borsoka (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Richard, here's my recollection of the history of this article and some of its content.  It was pretty much a dumping ground for fringe stuff that editors didn't want put into other Hungarian articles.[1] It had been continuously marked as totally disputed or had other templates marking sections as controversial or unsourced, etc. See this old version of it: [2].  In 2007, I began improvement of the article and several related articles (like merging Levedia into it [3], correcting the "east of the Urals" belief in the Hungarian people article, etc.). A few other editors participated in that effort. The fringe theory stuff ended up becoming a section on historiography. It was eventually removed by other editors, even though I didn't fully agree with that. There was also an examination of the disciplines/sciences used to arrive at all the theories.  Most of that content got put into another article on Sources for Hungarian prehistory.[4]  That eventually got deleted too.  So while this article may have been created expressly as a dumping ground for one particular editor's POV, there hasn't been any effort to re-add that old stuff back into the article by the original protagonists for it.  I'm not seeing why we should invite it by creating a separate section for it.  Certainly not this new Sanskrit theory, but the Sumerian-Hungarian theory is notable both as a manifestation of Hungarian nationalism (which means it is more appropriate in that article) and as part of the historiography of Hungarian prehistory (see also Historiography and nationalism). Actually, if you look around WP, there _are_ separate articles for notable fringe theories. As for Sanskrit, wouldn't that be more appropriately placed at Hungarian_language#Controversy_over_origins, where the Sumerian theory is also found? --Stacey Doljack Borsody (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Quite possibly. OK, if any secondary literature on the Sanskrit idea turns up, we should put it in Hungarian_language#Controversy_over_origins. Thanks for the helpful discussion. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I am very pleased to see a reasonable discussion taking place on this topic.  If you don't want any reference to my entry that is fine.  But I feel you are greatly misinformed if you think there is no scholarly work done on a connection between Hungarian and Sanskrit.  Here are just some brief suggestions for you to consider.  Sandor Csoma in the 19th century was the first to suspect a link, the Asiatic Society recorded in a letter: (Since he has lived in Calcutta, Mr. Csoma has studied the Sanskrit language with great diligence, having found in its structure and in those of some present-day languages originating from it a close relationship to that of Hungarian. ) http://www.archivum.kcst.hu/dictionary/terjek_csoma-life.html.  This past spring the Mansi Government (also an Uralic language) posted the following on “The Ob-Ugrian Peoples’ Theatre” website. (...It is scientifically proved that a number of corresponding words in the languages of Ob’ Ugric peoples and old tribes of India is extensive, among them there are numerals, cattle-breeding terminology, names of animals and plants.)  They explained the connection by citing the work of the Indian linguist Rahul Sankrityana.  You might also find this article of interest.  http://www.members.tripod.com/~INDIA_RESOURCE/indian-languages.html
While a Sanskrit - Hungarian connection is only recently gaining acceptance by linguists as a viable possibility it is far more accepted than the term "fringe theory" would imply.Frank SandorMagyarOrigins (talk) 20:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to two books that discuss the relationship between Finno-Ugrians and early Sanskrit speakers.
The first is by the Hungarian linguist Janos Harmatta The Emergence of the Indo-Iranians.
http://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledge-bank-article/vol_I%20silk%20road_the%20emergence%20of%20the%20indo%20iranians,%20the%20indo%20iranian%20languages.pdf
Harmatta shows extensive contact between Finno-Ugrians and early Sanskrit speakers lasting for at least 3,500 years.
The second is an award winning book by Russian archaeologist Elena E. Kuz’mina (2007) The Origin of the Indo-Iranians
https://archive.org/details/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranians
Kuz’mina concludes that not only did the Finno-Ugrians and early Sanskrit speakers have close contact but that the Urals are the homeland for these early Sanskrit speakers.
Kuz’mina's credentials can be found here http://www.cr-journal.ru/en/journals_en/57.html&j_id=4
To quote Kuz’mina "Taking into account Chinese evidence and the localization of the Finno-Ugrians in the forest zone of Eurasia, the Indo-Iranian homeland should be placed in the Urals and Kazakhstan, and the hypothesis of a migration from the Near East should be rejected because the Bactrian camel was unknown there."
If the homeland of the Vedics was the Urals then it is hardly a giant leap to explore the possibility that Hungarian culture and language are Vedic Sanskrit in origin.  Especially when you consider that the time period of exposure of the Finno-Ugrians to early Sanskrit was just as long, if not longer, than the time period of exposure for the people of India to Sanskrit.  Unlike fringe theories such as Sumerian, the idea of extensive Sanskrit influence on the Uralic languages is supported by main stream archaeology.[[[Special:Contributions/23.16.80.41|23.16.80.41]] (talk) 16:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Frank Sandor]

All utter rubbish. No such theory is 'gaining acceptance' - stop lying. 50.111.19.2 (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Hungarian is not even an Indo-European language despite the heavy acquisition of loanwords from IE languages (at first Iranian, then Slavic, Germanic, Latin and - post-Latin - Romance). Sanskrit is clearly Indo-Aryan, therefore Indo-Iranian, which in turn is a branch of the IE family. For comparison, there are persistent similar unfounded claims about Sanskrit being Slavic instead. None of them have any scientific foundation either. 2A02:AB04:2A7:9400:34E9:5C6C:995A:563F (talk) 08:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Let us divide this article and create 2 new wonderful articles. Hortobagy (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The origin of Hungarians and The origin of Szekelys Hortobagy (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: the above two articles do not cover the whole subject of this article; there is no point in splitting existing articles just for the joy of splitting. Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, naturally. --Norden1990 (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, silly idea. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose, This idea does not make any sense. First of all, there is no text to be split. The subject "origin of Szekelys" is, unfortunately, entirely missing from the article. It is negotiated at pages of Szekely people and History of Szekely people. On the other hand the matter "origin of Szekelys" would deserve a couple of sentences here therefore we should improve this article instead of splitting. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose split I suppose, though the article now is exclusively about the origins of the Magyars, with absolutely nothing on the rich actual prehistory of Hungary in the normal sense of the word - Stone, bronze & iron ages, which is at the oddly named History of Hungary before the Hungarian Conquest. If there was more on this the origins of the Magyars could be split & summarized. Probably this article should be renamed Origins of the Magyar people anyway.  Johnbod (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The titles of these articles reflect Hungarian historiography. The history of the Magyars before they unambiguously enter the written record in the 9th century is conventionally called Hungarian "prehistory" or "protohistory". Even the capitalisation of "Conquest" is, I think, a borrowing from Hungarian, where there is a special term for the Hungarian settlement in Europe and some authors capitalise in English to emphasise its singularity as an event. András Róna-Tas, for example, eschews "prehistory" in favour of "early history", but he capitalises "Magyar Conquest" to emphasise that it is really a translation of the Hungarian phrase honfoglalás, which does not only refer to conquest. Here at Wikipedia we do the opposite: our conquest article is uncapitalised but we still use "prehistory". Srnec (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
However the name came about, it is very misleading for English-speaking non-specialists. There seems no reason not to merge this with the very short Magyar tribes. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The main reason is that the prehistory of the Hungarians is much longer than the history of the Hungarian tribes.  Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, there's no reason not to merge them. In fact they cover much of the same ground.  Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have misunderstood you. Do you suggest that the article Magyar tribes should be merged into this article? Borsoka (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Johnbod (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Why? That article, I mean "Magyar/Hungarian tribes", could be expanded. Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, most easily by merging with this one, which essentially covers the same material. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
No, the two article do not cover the same material. The "prehistory" article covers the development of the Hungarian people as a distinct ethnic group which lasted for some millenia, while the "tribes" article describes a political institution. Would you merge the article "County (United States)" into the article "United States"? Borsoka (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Suggestion This article should be called the History of the Magyar tribes instead and probably merged with the Magyar tribes. Alternatively, a Prehistory of Hungary article is needed to cover Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age etc. in the present territory of modern Hungary. See Prehistory of France. Of course such an article won't touch on Magyars at all but other cultures, including Dacians, Celts and Illyrians and maybe some people won't like that. Prehistory usually goes with a region and not with a nation. For those who master the subtleties of the English language, the term "Hungarian prehistory" is not the same as "Prehistory of Hungary" and is more of an oxymoron. Probably the intention of a term like "Hungarian prehistory" is to show that the "Hungarian nation" is extremely old and has continuity since Neolithic, which is simply nationalistic and wrong. --Codrin.B (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd agree with that. To deal with the valid point of the Roman-Avar period not being "prehistory" (of Hungary) there are other solutions - including expanding the content to its proper size so Prehistory of Hungary is all pre-Roman, with another article from the Romans to Avars/pre-conquest. Johnbod (talk) 11:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Codrinb, you are well aware the fact that there are no "extremely old nations" in this region of the world, no continuity can be proven. For instance, I do not suppose that we should delete 90% of the article named "History of Romania" just because Romania came into being in 1859. Should we assume that those who use this obviously anachronistic expression (Romania) are driven by chauvinistic, nationalistic, .... bias? No, they follow the example set by reliable sources. Please assume good faith. Dear Johnbod, the present title of the article can be substantiated by reliable source, why should we change it? Borsoka (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Because to a normal English-speaker it suggests it is about a completely different subject. It is not merely ambiguous, but misleading. Johnbod (talk) 13:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I also oppose the proposal to split this article, and am even more strongly against suggestions to merge or move this article.  The article was originally allowed to exist specifically so that this information - which some editors seem hostile to being presented or even talked about on wikipedia - can have a home without spilling into other articles.  But now, even that's not good enough, even that safety valve has to be taken away, there must be NO MENTION on wikipedia that certain schools of thought exist, and they can do nothing but continue to stab it repeatedly with their steely knives until they convince themselves the beast is dead. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I for one have no idea what you are talking about. But clearly there are all sorts of agendas around these pages, the last of which seem to be complying with WP policies or presenting material under article titles that will be comprehended by non-expert English-speakers who are foolish enough to define Hungarians as people who live(d) in Hungary! Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I desperatelly try to understand your logic. Do you suggest that Slovaks, Croats, Romanians, Serbians who lived in Hungary some century ago were Hungarians? I would be surprised if this definition were accepted by Slovak, Croat, Romanian and Serbian editors (and sincerely, myself, a Hungarian editor, would not easily accept it). Or do you suggest that there are Hungarians who are Magyars and there are Hungarians who are not Magyars (for example, because they are ethnic Romanians, Gypsies, Slovaks, Germans ...) in present-day Hungary? Would you refer to a reliable source which applies this distinction? Borsoka (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It's very simple. For English-speaking people, the "Hungarian" in "Hungarian prehistory" naturally reads as an adjective relating to "Hungary", not to a bunch of people living in the Ukraine, Russia, etc. Present-day definitions are not relevant here, since the subject deals only with periods over 1,000 years ago. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but there was the following 1000 years when whole Slovakia, and significant parts of Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Austria were included in Hungary. Should we write of Hungarians. It would be absurd: XY the Hungarian national leader who fought for his nation's rights against Hungarian nationalism. What about "Prehistory of the Hungarians",  "Prehistory of the Hungarian people" or "Hungarians' prehistory"? Borsoka (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
They (the ones that are grammatical) would be better, but Magyar tribes (or people etc) is the best way to go, precisely because (in English) it avoids these problems, which is why it exists as a distinct word in English. That "Hungarians" existed before they came to Hungary is not exactly universally known to English-speakers, and to those who are aware "Magyar" remains the expected term. Johnbod (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Johnbod, as I mentioned above, the article "Magyar/Hungarian tribes" describes a specific institution which lasted only for some centuries within the long prehistory of the Hungarian people: the existence of the Hungarian tribes cannot be proven before the 800s and after about 1009, while linguistic studies prove that the Hungarians must have emerged as a distinct ethnic group about 3000 years ago. Moreover the "prehistory of the Hungarian people" is a much wider subject than the institution of the tribes.  Would you also merge the article "History of England" into the article "Lord Protector"? As far as I know the institution of Lord Protectors had a preeminent role in the History of England. Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
You are just being silly. I repeat: whatever it is called, it can't be called "Hungarian prehistory" because that is misleading in English. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Why is it misleading? If it is misleading why is it used by reliable sources which describe the prehistory of the Hungarian people? Borsoka (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Which version would you prefer: "Prehistory of the Hungarian people", "Prehistory of the Hungarians" or else? Yes, I am silly, but please understand that the Magyar/Hungarian tribes article cannot cover the prehistory of the Hungarian people. Borsoka (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I expect the reliable sources are written by and for people who would know enough about the subject to realise teh difference (and to explain it to less knowledgeable readers).  But the average person coming across this article (or someone moderately knowledgable of the subject but not aware of all the technicalities and looking for more information) might not be aware of the distinction.  Especially as most non-specialist English-language history books tend to use "Magyar" to describe the Hungarians before the establishment of the Kingdom of Hungary, and "Hungarian" after that point.  Personally, I would think that either of your suggested titles would be better than the current one.  Alternatively, "Prehistory of the Magyars", to emphasise that it is a particular ethnic group being discussed, regardless of where they were living. Iapetus (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Kiraly, a Bulgar source mentions that the Hungarians participated in the Battle of Pliska. "811. óbolgár prolog, sinaksarion: I. Nikéforos bizánci császár és Krum bolgár fejedelem között a Haemus (Balkán) hegységben lezajlott ütközetben a magyarok (Egre, Vegre, Ugre) a bolgárokat segítik"[5]. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is a theory, but it has not been widely accepted. Harmatta writes on the same subject: "Vitatott az Οὺγγροι név használatának kezdete is a bizánci történetíróknál. Vannak olyan óegyházi szláv források, amelyek a bizánci Οὺγγροι szláv Egrы / Vẹgrы megfelelőjét használják már Krum bolgár fejedelem Niképhoros császár felett 811-ben aratott győzelmével kapcsolatban, amelynek részesei voltak e hagiográfiai források (synaxarion) szerint a magyarok is. Minthogy e synaxarionokat görögből fordították, s más görög források szerint a bolgárok szövetségesei az avarok voltak, felmerülthet az a gondolat is, hogy a görög synaxarion-szövegben nem az Οὺγγροι, hanem az ᾊβαροι népnév szerepelt. Szövegkritikai alapon e kérdés nehezen dönthető el, mert még ha feltesszük is, hogy az eredeti görög nyelvű synaxarion-szövegben az ᾊβαροι népnév állott, nem zárható ki annak a lehetősége, hogy a magyarázó széljegyzetként az Οὺγγροι népnevet is tartalmazta, s az óegyházi szláv fordító ezt vette figyelembe."  (Harmatta, op. cit., p. 127). So there is a Slavic translation of an unknown Greek text which contradicts to all other Greek sources in this respect, because all other Greek sources wrote of Avars instead of Magyars. The article only says that the first event which was certainly connected to the Magyars occurred in the late 830s.  Borsoka (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the answer. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I know Hungarians tend to get very worked up about these issues, but in English "Hungarian prehistory" means the prehistory of Hungary (yes, of course that raises questions of definition). This article is about the Prehistory of the Magyar people and should be so renamed. That might not be the case in Hungarian, but it is in English, which cannot really cope with the concept that the "Hungarian people" should be so termed at periods when none of them had yet set foot in Hungary. There are other valid possibilities mentioned above: Origins of the Magyar people, History of the Magyar tribes etc. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Johnbod, I suggest that you should follow the process described here. I think the last version would be quite controversial, because the existence of tribes before the 9th century cannot be proven. Borsoka (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Support renaming. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I'll copy this down below, to the relevant section. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you and Ghirla identical? Borsoka (talk) 12:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
No, but this is now stranded.  -  Borsoka has de-copied it below. So helpful. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Why do not you ask Ghirla of his/her views before voting on his/her behalf? Borsoka (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Smart Nomad, please read WP:Lead: the "lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". If you think that this info should be mentioned in the article, the relevant subsection (under the title "The Hungarian Conquest") should be expanded based on the source. Thereafter the lead could be expanded (without any reference). Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so basically you want to keep it the way it was (in the meantime)? I know about WP:Lead. What you are requesting though doesn't really make sense. That would mean just including the Pechenegs, implying it was just them that forced the Hungarians to move, when in fact they were allied with the First Bulgarian Empire, and 'both' the Pechenegs and Bulgarians defeated the Hungarians. How does it ruin the lead by just basically including 'Bulgarians' in the sentence?
Smart Nomad (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Smart Nomad, no, you obviously do not know WP:Lead (if you knew it, you would not put a reference in the lead). Please read my message again: the article itself should be modified/expanded before the lead is modified. That is all I suggest. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
"The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article"
Smart Nomad (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Smart Nomad, please read WP:Lead: the "lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, the cited source (Runciman) does not make connection between the Magyars' defeat by the Bulgarians and the Magyars' departure from Etelköz. (Runciman only writes of the Magyars' defeat in Bulgaria and their departure from Etelköz after Etelköz was destroyed by the Pechenegs who were the Bulgarians' ally). [10] Borsoka (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Torvalu4, the sources cited (Spinei 2003, p. 44. and Kristó 1996, p. 156) do not refer to Turla (the allegedly Turkic name of the river Dniester), to Var (the allegedly Hunnic name of the Dnieper) and the Kuban (which was allegedly mistaken with the Southern Bug). Furthermore, the allegedly Turkic and Hunnic names are not relevant in this article. Please stop your original research. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

First, a quick check on Wikipedia's Dniester and Dnieper pages provides basic verification; so lets drop the "alleged". Second, if you consult "any" source that actually explains where the Greek names come from and the "traditional" interpretation, like, say here @ fn4 or here2 @ p. 94, then you'd know this isn't original research. Finally, the Turkic and Hunnic names are relevant in explaining how, say, MGreek Troullos could refer to the Dniester, which isn't self-explanatory. I suppose a person could click Dniester in hopes of finding some insight, but you didn't do that... so an inline explanation seems warranted. Torvalu4 (talk) 05:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Torvalu4, (1) the sources cited in the sentence do not contain any reference to the information you added; (2) no, those names are not relevant in the article about the Hungarian prehistory; furthermore, you may not know, but WP articles do not qualify as reliable sources for WP purposes (for instance, the reference to Turla in the article Dniester is not based on reliable sources). Borsoka (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Borsoka, you alleged that I had added original research, which I've shown to not be the case (please actually read the alleged footnotes), and you came to this conclusion by not doing your homework - allegedly. After all, the only possible reason you would've made such a point of using "alleged" is if you didn't actually do your own research. Thus, you have no basis to remove the edits; ultimately, a simple lack of citations is not grounds for deletion. My point about the WP articles was not that they're citable sources, but that they do serve to verify at the very least that I have not added allegedly original research. As to the alleged irrelevance of explaining the names, that's a matter of opinion that, frankly, isn't up to you to definitively decide. Allegedly yours, Torvalu4 (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
(1) The information you added to the well-referenced article was not mentioned in the works cited in the same sentence. (2) You have not explained why do you think that the Turkic names of the rivers are relevant. Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Under the section on Levedia, the article states Porphyrogenitus said the tribes did not obey to their own voivodes, but they had "a joint agreement to fight together with all earnestness and zeal ... wheresoever war breaks out", suggesting the tribal chiefs were military leaders. This needs correction since "obey to" is incorrect English, but I wasn't sure what to correct it to—could you explain the meaning of the sentence? It seems contradictory to say that the tribes didn't obey the voivodes, when it also says the voivodes were their leaders. —Nizolan (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. I changed "did not obey to their own voivodes" to "did not obey their voivodes". I think it is not contradictory: the text suggests that the voivodes were military (not political) leaders. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks—I don't think that's clear from the sentence, though; I reworded it to make it obvious. I checked the reference from Berend et al. and it should still comply. Let me know if there's an issue. —Nizolan (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but Porphyregenitus explicitly said that the tribes did not obey their voivodes. I think we should not change his words. Borsoka (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, but the point you want to make still needs to be made explicit in the latter half of the sentence, since it doesn't come across in English. Moreover, if the concern is that the first clause is part of a direct quotation which shouldn't be changed, then it should be marked as such. I have done so, having checked the source. I tried another formulation, which conveys the point you want to make explicitly. —Nizolan (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your edit. The new version is clearly better than the previous one. Borsoka (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I've read the Request Move discussion of 2014 and agree with one of the discussants that the current article title is very confusing. The title suggests to discuss prehistory of the territory that is currently Hungary. The title of this article should at least make more clear that it is about the ethnic group, e.g. by means of a disambiguator, History of the Hungarians (ethnic group). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The introduction is too long. Kapeter77 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)