Talk:Hungarian prehistory/Archive 2

message: I noticed that the article Hungarian prehistory was tagged for cleanup, and assumed there was another article on the same topic...turns out there is...they should definitely be merged although that would take a bit of effort combining the info in both. I'll offer whatever help I can, but mainly I put it there so both articles' editors would know about the existance of the other. Best, Paul 23:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that some people who are serious about NPOV want to keep the articles separate (there is yet a third article on the same topic) so that they don't have to constantly fight the 'Hungarian is Turkic' nationalists. Maybe it would be better to merge them, though it will likely end up in arbitration. kwami 23:17, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Oops, sorry, I was thinking of a different article. Yes, this article is about the prehistory of the Magyar people; the other is about the history of Pannonia. The merge tag should be removed. kwami 00:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe "Hungarian prehistory: alternative theories" or "Hungarian History (alternative accounts)"...  By the way, just in case anyone still hasn't gotten it yet, this article is about the Hungarian people before 890 AD; the other traces the history of Pannonia (later Hungary) before 890 AD.  890 AD is when the two topics "meet up", so to speak; but before that year, they are quite separate topics, because the Hungarians hadn't moved to Hungary yet, they were living somewhere else. Codex Sinaiticus 14:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Paul, I think we can address that pretty easily within Codex's title. Also, that might encourage the inclusion of other hypotheses besides just the current one. Who favors moving this to "Hungarian prehistory (alternative accounts)"? kwami 19:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like it would be fine...just as long as there aren't two articles with confusingly similar titles and content. Paul 19:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Isn't that going to be a POV fork? -- nyenyec ☎ 19:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Renaming this to "Hungarian prehistory (alternative accounts)" would make this appear less of a pov fork than it already does.  There is a consensus of many authors of a need for this separate article.  And one more time, IF there is any other article in competition with this one, it is NOT "Hungary before the Magyars", that is a completely different topic; that one refers to the county, not to the people, who were living in a different country.  Maybe if that is too confusing to you, you should try renaming that one to "Pannonia before the Magyars"...  Codex Sinaiticus 20:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: How about also renaming this one "Magyar prehistory (alternative accounts)"? 66.27.205.12 20:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge tag 

message: Ok, after much pondering, I've decided to ask you to consider moving the parts of this article that we agree to be more or less uncontroversial to the general article on 'Magyars', which still has plenty of room for more data on Magyar Prehistory and Anthropology. The different interpretations of data sources both cited by the article and on this talk page would then be incorporated into the 'Magyars' article, eliminating or redirecting this one. That would be far better than trying to wikify and improve on it, since most of the info that can be said to be really serious and useful here is also relevant to 'wiki/Magyars', and we would be avoiding a) redundance of topics; and b)mantaining a page that is so hopelessly biased in its core (Kiszely's) and poorly written, as an actual wiki page. If you agree, we could then make a list of what can be 'saved' and subsequently moved. E.Cogoy 21:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I disagree that this article should be redirected, remember the whole original decided purpose was to funnel off exactly those viewpoints that were not considered welcome in the main Magyar article, specifically to avoid endless infighting.  The core of it was Kiszely's writing , but there are still lots of other competing, alternate theories that do crop up and get added from time to time - often enough, they are "sent" over here by the crowd at Magyars.  Without this pressure release valve if you will, Magyars will again become a battleground, and the dominant pov there will again eventually crowd out all others and this data would be lost.  Nobody at Magyars even really wants to see any of this stuff in "their" article, I can assure you.  Yes, you can call it a pov-fork, but in some rare instances they are necessary, and I think this is a classic case of one that is.  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (sigh) the battle of one pov to censor and suppress all others and make them totally unavailable and inaccessible never really ends, does it? Yes, the Magyar ancestors were always harmless, peaceful Laplanders who raised reindeer, certainly weren't related to anyone important, and played absolutely NO role in history, until they accidentally showed up one day in a vacuum in Central Europe. This is now the only acceptable truth, and if you dare to suggest something different to this, you're looking for trouble. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In response to "there's no doubt that genetics..." ... Actually, there is considerable doubt.  Unless, of course the people who doubt it don't count -- then I guess you could say there is "no doubt".  ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 20:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If you check the conclusion of the section above titled "Merge tag", you will see there is already sufficient consensus to rename this page to "Hungarian prehistory (alternative accounts)" for greater clarity...  then an anon suggested that even better would be "Magyar prehistory (alternative accounts)", and of course he was right, but nobody responded after that and the idea kind of died on the vine...  However if you read that section we had gotten to the very same reason you just gave now, so this time, first of all, would there still be consensus like there was 6 months ago to move this to either "Hungarian prehistory (alternative accounts)" or, even more accurately, "Magyar prehistory (alternative accounts)"...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A New Proposal 

message: This article, with such a general title, must be an overview of all theories. The part which is "based on "The Hungarian Old Country", written in Hungarian by professor István Kiszely" must be moved out into an article with title that clearly says it is a particular theory. 
Also, the part from Hungarian people must be incorporated here. Currently hungarian prehistory in wikipedia is in chaos. `'mikka (t) 21:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposal 

message: In spite of numerous and degrading assertions to the contrary, the fact is that the ancestors of the Hungarians were never truly "pagans".
What sort of NPOV is that? It's degrading to call the ancient Hungarians "pagans"?  xod 22:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is?  What were they then?  --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: 81.182.6.240 16:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on words related to religion 

message: *According to excavations of conquest era graves, the ruling layer in early Magyar society had a mixed europoid/mongoloid skull morphology. The middle layer of horse warriors that did the soldiering had predominantly east-Baltic european skull morphology, and the bottom layer had an assortment of various european skull morphologies.
*The name Megyer refers to one clan among seven Magyar clans (excluding the Kabars). Megyer is not a regular variant of Magyar. The ethonym Magyar is not connected to the ethonym Mansi. Instead it is connected to the ethonym Baskir, and both terms have a common origin, as attested by early Persian and Arabic sources.
*The Hungarians earliest known dwelling place roughly corresponds to modern Bashkortostan. 
*There is only a finno-ugric linguistic grouping, not a finno-ugric gene or people or culture.
*Proto-ugric has never been reconstructed.
The Question 20:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification