Talk:Magyar tribes

10 year old Álmos and the blood oath

The article states Álmos was 10 years old when Magyars took the blood oath. I am sure of that a child could NOT participate in a blood oath at that age, before his initiation. Either Álmos was not born in 820 or the blood oath was not in 830. Btw from what source is this date 830 for the blood oath at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.177.1 (talk) 08:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

this article needs English references, inline citations, and a NPOV rewrite - BADLY

1) Not one reference in English. There's no way a non-Magyar language speaker can verify any of this. 2) The flowery, ornate language of parts of the article isn't encyclopedic, and much of this article is full of peacock terms. 3) Inline citations are very scant. 4) Why is Attila/The Huns being touted in an article about Magyar tribes??? This article would be a nominee for swift deletion in many editors' eyes. It needs alot of work. HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

I agree with HammerFilmFan. --Omen1229 (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Medonich

I have deleted this part of the article, because it does not have connection with the tribes.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Magyar tribes and Principality of Hungary

"The Magyar tribes (Hungarian: magyar törzsek) were the fundamental political units whose framework the Hungarians (Magyars) lived within, until they invaded the Carpathian Basin and established the Principality of Hungary." User Fakirbakir used this uncited expression, can you cite it with the reliable source which speaks about Magyar tribes and Principality of Hungary? Thank you. --Samofi (talk) 12:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Cited:"Magyar clans....established Principality of Hungary"The East-Central European region: an historical outlineFakirbakir (talk) 14:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

So Bauer talks about fictive countries like 'Principality of Hungary'?Fakirbakir (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

your link speaks nothing about principality of hungary and which state is "czech bohemian kingdom of moravia" from your "expert" hodos? its magyar legend and not neutral and reliable scholar source. --Samofi (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please read the new English source (Bauer) before you delete it?Fakirbakir (talk) 09:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

sorry fakirbakir, but we cannot verify this source --Samofi (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Who is 'we'?Fakirbakir (talk) 09:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Cited: warrior state into a nation: the Principality of Hungary. It is pretty straightforward........Fakirbakir (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

source talks that principality of hungary was established in 895 by magyar tribes? --Samofi (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

First you said it is a fictive country, now you question its establishment....NO it was not established, It hanged in the air. :P .The source also states 'warrior state'. We can say that it was a warrior state around 900.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Look, I have 2 terminological and contain problems with hungarian prehistory:

a) the term principality of Hungary is on the bottom of usage - 90% of sources talks about tribal alliance, tribal union, tribal confederation. This term was only used in few tertiary sources (so history until 972 is about Hungarian tribal polity) b) hungarians had principality but it was Principality of Geza (Géza magyar fejedelem) in 972, so if I would make compromis with you, than we can talk about principality from 972 (but no Principality of Hungary). Until the 972 it were a tribal chieftains and tribes were not ethnicaly homogenous and unified - for example Koppan´s pagan revolt in 998. --Samofi (talk) 10:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You can not understand.There was a Hungarian tribal alliance in Etelköz. We do not use 'Hungarian tribal alliance' instead of Etelköz. Those are not entirely synonyms. We can not substitute the form 'Principality of Hungary' with Hungarian tribal alliance (the term of Principality of Hungary also means a geographical territory) . And of course, Principality of Hungary is the latter name of the state (conterporary sources says 'Tourkia'). Principality of Nitra is the same (we do not say Slav tribal alliance instead of Principality of Nitra, however this state is also a pagan state). Fakirbakir (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In this article need is giving some definitions of the "Magyar" Tribe Alliance 's name clarify the situation. I find little in the contemporary sources, the "Magyar, originally" Madzsar", in English saying 'ma:jar.' people apellation, because it is named after a Hungarian one strain after the tribal alliance Dengizik Hun prince's death was broken Hun areas has created new alliances that language was mostly "Ogur" language,from "oqut" proto-Turkic counterpart. 'R' hike, wasn't an "ugor"-Uralian" language, unlike Köktürk khaganate "Z" Turkic language, which the oguz tribes language comes from. The pre-magyars spoke of "Ogur" language of the pre-magyar leader class and an armed members, and even a non-Slavicbut the Turanian, Pamir species bulgars and the Turkic Chuvashes. The one that springs so the Ural and in Volga, East European plain living "Turks" or "Ogura" and kuturgurs (see KUT like an ancient Turkic word), the names Sabirs included, there are likely to pre-magyar tribes, too . And the names of the tribes individually may appear.

My name is Gyarmati. I am "under forced" that I'm here to write an otherwise fully understand Turkish "Kürt-Gyarmat" tribal name (probably two tribes merged backs) etymology. The "gyarmat"name was in the sources of Anonymus "YORMUTH". In the current-Oguz Turkish language, the name exists "yorulmaz" form. It means "tireless". It is a virtue and fighting property name. /contunue!/ Gyarmati Pal dr. 13:44 29. June 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyarmati Pál (talk • contribs) 11:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No offense, but your English is so poor, it is very hard to follow what you are saying - nor do you mention any Reliable Sources - your personal views are not viable for Talk Page discussion. Considering your limited English vocabulary, this is perhaps not the version of Wikipedia for you to be editing. 68.19.0.149 (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Some Thoughts

I find it very interesting that most of the sources concerning origins are based on early (18th century) linguistics, which are contested and have been ever since. Pseudo-scientific, nationalist and reversion theories or 'facts' cloud the issue. Modern day DNA and archaeological evidence does not prove nor disprove much of these theories without some bias or more pointedly, lack of direction and research. Attempts have been made though with different levels of acceptance in accepted academic circles. The Hungarians themselves believe in the bible myths (Nimrod), turn of the 20th century Sumerian scholars who drew conclusions with the similarity of agglutanitive word forms, and their own written history which is romantic at best, written 300 years after Etelkoz. Other historical non-magyar sources (Moravanium) have stated that the Magyar horse-archer army (note, this is only one tribe) were employed by the Moravians and the Germanic Franks to rid each other from the Carpathian Basin. A total of 3 military engagements (circa 860) were made by Magyars before Etelkoz. The last military engagement against the Moravians was also the point in time when Etelkoz occured, followed by settlement. Therefore the Magyars, in the employ and influenced by the Byzantines (read East vs West Catholicism) were already known and were allowed to keep the booty from these skirmises. Arab sources state that one of these tribes lived on the coast of the Black Sea as early as 500AD. What is theorized is that these 10 tribes were multinational. The clans* included peoples from the Volga (Mansi-Reindeer People), Afghan, Mongol, Scythian (horse archers), some Turkic and possibly an onogur tribe as well. Some sources even state that the remnants of Atilla's tribes also joined up. Not all tribes did though. Initially, the Cumans were at war with the Confederation, but later joined after the Mongol invasions. Another theory adds that there was already a confederation tribe living in the Carpathians anyway. They weren't Slovaks, Rusyns, Germanic Franks or Romanians (Dacians) as they came much later. Although the Moravians were never really a threat, the confederation of tribes moved en mass into the Carpathian basin unopposed, assimilating the scant local populace. The confederation stopped expanding westwards by the Germans, but still a scouting force of 5000 horse archers were sent, travelling towards the lower Baltic, down the coast of France, across Spain, Italy and Greece before arriving back to the Carpathias. So there is no answer or conclusive proof as (laughably) acceptable modern (and English) sources are not definitive and contain some truths only. The danger here is assuming that it is 100% correct. So in an article like this, I propose that the question of origins just cannot be determined accurately and without debate, as anything written, especially here, would be contentious. So I propose that the Western Academic stance, although flawed, should be adopted with the proviso that it is contentious, enumerating other (Eastern sources), modern linguistic and other studies, folklore and so on to give a much needed balanced article. P.

• Studies comparing Magyar and Japanese, Chinese (music), Vietnamese, Tibetan, Samartians, Celts etc have all been done but generally unavailable in English. DNA has been used to show that there is very little relationship between the Finn and Magyar peoples. Archaeological evidence does not show a trail of finds leading to any origins. The Szekely-Magyar Runes were destroyed (as well as the Pagan religion) by the Christianization of the 'Principality' - and yes, I agree that Arpad (successor to Almos), as Prince of the Magyar tribe, was elected at Etelkoz as leader (though not King), being the first of the outdoor parliaments of all tribes and clans, indigneous as well. 'Principality' in this case equates to the whole land under his govenorship and NOT the meaning that the Western scholars attribute to it. This was still 895AD and not a hundred years later when the decapitation and Christianization of competing tribes occured thanks to Geza and Istvan (Vajk).

Htcs (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)220.233.81.185 (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (August 2013)

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Though there were a number of appeals to WP:COMMONNAME from various parties in this vigorous discussion, we saw little evidence either way, and certainly not enough to make the proposed title the obvious choice. Two things are clear: (1) that "Magyar" is well established in English, including in high-quality sources, and (2) that there is no consensus in this discussion to move the article. It also seems clear to me that leaving this discussion is unlikely to come to a different result. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Magyar tribes → Hungarian tribes – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 09:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support: besides WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ENGLISH also applies, since the word "Hungarian" is much more common in English to denote ethnic Hungarians than the word "Magyar". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:ENGLISH. "Magyar" term in English context used by older publications, and nowadays is created for the purpose of unjustified distinction between the historical and today's Hungary. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. As per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH. Borsoka (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The native name in the lead is fair enough, --Csendesmark (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME since we are talking about the Early Medieval period, this is still the correct and most common term. Johnbod (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• - Note, in English, Hungarian is the common name for "Magyar". --Csendesmark (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

No, "Hungarian" is the translation for "Magyar" in Hungarian, but not the commonname, though certainly often used, for the early peoples, which remains Magyars etc. It is important to understand that. Frankly, it is unfortunate in this respect that most voters here are Hungarian natives, as I think they are unaware of this distinction in the English language, which can be compared to that between Anglo-Saxons and English people - eg here. The link shows the term in English is by no means limited to "older publications". Johnbod (talk) 00:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

1,'Hungarian' and 'Magyar' were more or less synonyms until the end of the 18th century. 2,In the Middle Ages, the "Hungarian" form was the traditional English word for the Magyars (and the Latin, French, German, Polish, Italian etc. forms as Ungari, Ungri, Hungri, Hungari, Ungarus, Hungarius, Onger, Wanger etc. had their roots in the same word). 3, Initially the word "Hungarian" only referred to ethnic Hungarians from the word Onogour, means ten tribes "ten arrows" from Turkic or from the Old Russian word Yugra). 4, The word "Magyar" is not a naturalized English word. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you think we should move Germans to 'Deutsche'? Fakirbakir (talk) 08:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense - see Srnec & the link. I don't think we should move Anglo-Saxons to English people either. I'm not sure what languages you are talking about at various points. "Magyar" is first cited by the OED in 1797. Why are 2) and 3) arguments for the move? 4) is flat untrue. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In this case you should move Hungarian people to Magyar people? Because the subject is the same. Fakirbakir was talking about Germans to Deutsche and not about your example (Anglo-Saxons and English people) which is obviously a bad example in this discussion. --Csendesmark (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In the English language the terminology is different for the Early Medieval tribal period, from later periods. This distinction does not, I presume, exist in the Hungarian language but it does in the English language. Please understand that or we are all wasting our time here. So Anglo-Saxons and English people is the apporopriate comparison, and Hungarians/Magyar and Germans/Deutsche inappropriate ones. This article is all about the period before 1000, so the appropriate term should be used - per WP:ENGLISH. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Strange, your argument is based on the same rules as ours (WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH), but did you try to paste "magyar" into a translator? Because it won't recognize that word as an English word (or meaning). Which is basically makes your arguments invalid. Try it! --Csendesmark (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well guess what, the thing is that this "Magyar" term has been used (and overused) in reference to time periods WAY after 1000 too, which clearly seems to be wrong even according to your definition(s). So it doesn't seem to be confused only by Hungarians, in fact the confusion seems to be much wider. -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

As Srnec says, it's not a question or right or wrong, but of English usage. The usage of Magyar in English for eg the Hungarian language or modern Hungarian people is indeed old-fashioned, but using it for the very early Magyar tribes is not, as shown by the google books link. You may find that confusing, but it is the case. Sorry. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You are entirely wrong. "Hungarian tribes" has 3160 hits [1], "Magyar tribes" has only 986 hits [2]. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

But look at the results - serious works by medieval historians mostly use "Magyar". Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The same link shows 3300 hits for "Magyar tribes" now. I do not really get it. My mistake. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I had the same issue myself - 3,300 a day or two ago, 986 or whatever today. Wierd - some Google quirk. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Magyars" is the term preferred by medievalists writing in English. The word "Hungarians" does not usually replace it until a Hungarian kingdom is firmly established (around 1000). There's no right or wrong here, but there is a preferred usage, just as in the Anglo-Saxons/English example. Srnec (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment That is simply not true. Medievalists know that the world "Hungarian" only referred to ethnic Hungarians in the 9th and 10th centuries. Primary sources preferred to use forms like "Hungarians" (Latin sources) or "Turks" (Byzantine sources) instead of "Magyars". Only some Arabic author used the "Magyars" form (Madjfarīyah). "Anglo-Saxons/English is a very bad example. You mistakenly mix "Natio Hungarica" with "Hungarian". Fakirbakir (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

???? We are talking about the usages of modern English-language medieval historians, as shown in the google books link above. I take it you haven't looked at this. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Science is universal and a scientific statement should not depend on the nationality of the scholar. We should focus on scholarly works in English and not works of English scholars. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

In theory, but the quality of commercial translators is variable. But "modern medieval historians" if you prefer. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Besides the WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH arguments presented above already, I really think that this should've been a no-brainer. I mean anybody who speaks Hungarian at a conversational level knows that Hungarian=magyar, Hungary=Magyarország (literally "the country of Hungarians" or "Hungarian country" just like Franciaország=France i.e. "French country", Németország=Germany i.e. "German country" etc.) and many pieces of classical music refer to Hungarians by this name as well (e.g. Hungarian dances by Brahms, Hungarian Rhapsodies by Liszt etc.). Some Anglo-Saxon historians' tendency to overuse the word "magyar" (and use it pretty much in place of "Hungarian") seems to stem from some weird (and not sufficiently explained) hypercorrection and/or due to their association of "Hungarian" with "Natio Hungarica", which is clearly wrong. -- CoolKoon (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sigh! Did you actually read the arguments above, by (I think) the only two native English-speakers in the discussion? This is becoming rather like a Monty Python sketch. We all know that Hungarian is the normal translation of Magyar, thank you. Johnbod (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter if the participants are native English speakers or not. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It matters how well they speak English. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Two native speakers? Srnec means "deer" in Czech (and Slovak), so let me cast some doubt on that (hopefully you didn't mean someone else). As for the Monthy Python sketch, it's funny, but the "Hungarian" sounds more like some bastardized Russian. What I tried to point to is that ALL the English teachers (including native speakers) will probably explain that "Magyar" is in fact "Hungarian". Oh and BTW in Hungarian Anglo-Saxon IS used as a synonym for English (law, countries etc.) too, so you might find that your related argument will be disputed too. -- CoolKoon (talk) 20:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of English. I don't think you're following the argument. The argument is that in English, the term "Magyar" is used in preference to "Hungarian" when describing the original tribes that showed up in central Europe in the 9th century. This preference is not universal (some historians would prefer "Hungarian"), but it is marked in English-language medieval history. This parallels the terms "Anglo-Saxon" and "English". Some scholars will talk about the English in the 7th and 8th centuries, but most prefer "Anglo-Saxon". The reasoning is probably similar: the terms "Hungarian" and "English" are reserved for the period after the creation of Hungary and England. When there is yet no Hungary, there are Magyars. When there is yet no England, there are Anglo-Saxons.

Since Hungary has been a multiethnic state and/or part of one throughout most of its history, some scholars seem to prefer "Magyar" in order to distinguish ethno-linguistic Hungarians from other subjects of the Hungarian crown, who could equally be called Hungarians, but not Magyars. This has nothing to do with either early medieval Europe or "Magyar tribes". It is a usage note, from my own impressions. Srnec (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, this article about Hungarians, and from oldest records are mentioning those people as: Onogur -> and from Onogur the other langues called them Ungarn, Hongrois and in English: Hungarian. You should check this out before wasting your time here. --Csendesmark (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So what? It doesn't matter what other languages do, or what the Hungarian language uses "Anglo-Saxon" to mean, we are talking about English usage here. See WP:ENGLISH. Johnbod (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can't comment on every language, but in English: "Hungarian" is those folks who came to the Carpathian Basin around ~1200 years before. See WP:ENGLISH. And we/they still calling them "magyar" then and now. But we have these Onogur Hungarian Ungarn etc name since the beginning. Please leave this obsession with the Anglo-Saxons because it's a very bad example, and I can tell tell you: we aren't Anglo-Saxons. --Csendesmark (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth (not much), I notice from the interwikis that the Spanish article is "Tribus magiares", and the French "Tribus magyares". Johnbod (talk) 03:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

They only follow English wikipedia. At the times of the Hungarian conquest and state establishment written sources did not use "Magyar" term and only ethnic Hungarians were called "Hungarians" (instead of "Magyars"). User:Srnec's reasoning is clearly wrong. The "Hungarian" word obtained a wider meaning centuries later (as citizenship, not ethnicity). And PLS, do not mix "Hungarian" with "Hungarus" (Natio Hungarica). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

My reasoning is absolutely correct. We title articles by what English usage is now, not what Latin usage was in the 9th century. The latter is irrelevant here. I have said nothing about what words in other languages mean or what words in English used to mean a centuries ago. Srnec (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Humph! google books search on "Tribus magyares". Johnbod (talk) 11:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"We title articles by what English usage is now, not what Latin usage was in the 9th century.". It is only your personal opinion. The term "Magyars" is not even a naturalized English word. Wikipedia is not for historians, it is for the laymen. Laymen have no idea what "Magyars" is. I am pretty sure majority of the historians do not really know which one is the better form (actually "Hungarian" is the better choice in connection with early conqueror Magyars)Fakirbakir (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The links to google books provide ample references, both to specialized works by historians and to popular guide books, and it has already been pointed out that "Magyar" is in the OED under several headings, first used 1797. In fact it used to be used more widely than it is now, where it normally refers only to the early history. Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Hungarian can refer to the country, while Magyar in English refers to the ethnic group -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

- Comment on 76.65.128.222's opinion: Please at least read the corresponding article (this time Hungarians) before commenting on "anything". Thank you! --Csendesmark (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that "Hungarian" does not refer to the country ? There are non-Magyar tribes in the area that is now Hungary -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't know the difference between Hungarians and Hungary? Well, I just gave you the wikilinks, you're welcome. (plz read them) --Csendesmark (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be thinking that "Hungarian" does not refer the country of Hungary. Read this wikt:Hungarian / wikt:Hungarians -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Your links are not worth too much. Their "etymology" section is a joke. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

So fix it, Wiktionary is also a wiki. Merriam-WebsterDictionary.com also associate the term primarily with the country. "Hungarian" associates with the country of Hungary. "Magyar" does not do so in English Dictionary.com -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 13:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice they are "Magyars" and they are not in Hungary

• Oppose per User:Johnbod and User:Srnec. "Magyar" tends to be used more until the formation of the Hungarian state. The "Anglo-Saxon" and "English" parallel is apt. —  AjaxSmack  02:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not true. Contemporary chronicles (9th and 10th centuries) did not even used the term "Magyars" (Only some Arabic authors, Latin and Byzantine sources never used it). Latin records !always! used the "Hungarian" form. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. Latin sources are totally irrelevant to the naming of this article. Not one of them used "Hungarian", a modern English word. Srnec (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Written sources are totally irrelevant???? Did you know that English "Hungarian" is a derivative of the Latin "Ungri" (other Latin forms: "Hungri", "Ungari", "Hungari" etc.)? Sorry, but your whole reasoning is a misconception. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Where terms derive from, how they ended up meaning what they do, and their meaning at any point in languages other than English, are all totally irrelevant to the issue here, which is to choose the best title based on modern English as used by reliable sources. If you and others think English uses the "wrong" terms, then by all means write a letter of complaint to your MP, the European Commission, or the editor of the OED, but please don't introduce these arguments here. Johnbod (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyway it is possible that early Hungarians called themselves "Hungarian" too. They surely belonged to the Onogur tribal alliance on the steppes of Eastern Europe (Onogur--->Ungri). Or according to another explanation, the Latin word comes from the Old Russian word "Yugra". Yugra meant "Ugric". The "Ugric" part in the expression of "Finno-Ugric" refers to the Hungarian, Khanty and Mansi peoples. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Johnbod, This statement "Magyar" tends to be used more until the formation of the Hungarian state. The "Anglo-Saxon" and "English" parallel is apt." is entirely original research. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Notice they are "Magyars" and they are not in Hungary", You might don't want to notice the calendar date of the map, also, we never say Hungarians lived in the Carpathian Basin since the beginning of time. You are making off-topic comments once again. --Csendesmark (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comments regarding Johnbod and Srnec's opinion: you are right that there are several English scholars who use the phrase "Magyar tribes" instead of "Hungarian tribes" with respect to early history. However, this usage is not universal, i.e., there are many scholars who use "Hungarian tribes" right from the beginning. If we perform Google Books searches ([3] vs [4]), we get similar hits (around 3k each). This means that both phrases are pretty common, so they both should be definitely mentioned in the lead of the article, irrespectively of the title. Since, both phrases are used in scholarly works and none of them have significantly larger usage (based on GB), we should find other reasons to justify the choice between them. In my opinion, the version "Hungarian tribes" is a better choice, simply because it is much more undestandable for an average, non-professional English speaker (who very likely does not know what "Magyar" means). Thus, even though both phrases are used by professionals, I still think that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH apply, simply because the word "Hungarian" is much more common in general English. This is especially important for using the phrase in other WP articles, since the meaning of "Hungarian tribes" is self-evident, while a laymen in history should follow the link to this article to understand the sentence that talks about "Magyar tribes". Even WP:LINKS states that "do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence". Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

As discussed above, "Magyar tribes" in fact has a lead, admittedly small, of 3310 to 3160 over Hungarian. Both phrases occur in both scholarly and popular contexts, alike, though I would suggest that Magyar is more common in the former. Since it has evidently come as a shock to Hungarian commenters above that "Magyar" is an English word at all, or has a particular meaning in English (and French and Spanish etc), you'll excuse me if I don't take your OR speculations on how familiar the word might be to lay readers of English seriously; I certainly don't agree with them. "Hungarian tribes" is of course a redirect, so no confusion should result. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? An average English speaker has no idea what "Magyars" means! Fakirbakir (talk) 16:40, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious. You are still trying to claim it isn't an English word at all. Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod: (1) The difference between the two GB results are statistically insignificant, the decision cannot be based on that; (2) Do you have some sources about the *general* usage of the word "Magyar" by non-professional (e.g., not scholars of early history) English speakers, or is it your original research that *most* English speakers do understand what "Magyar" means? (3) If you agree that in other articles the form "Hungarian tribes" should be used, then what's the point of using a different article title? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

PS: One more thing. It is not relevant what the *claimed* first languages of the participating editors are, since we have no way to verify this. It is also not relevant what editors *think* about the mother tongues of other editors. The discussion should focus on *arguments* rather than the claimed or imagined native languages of the participating editors. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per many arguments above plus, as you can see, the Name of Hungary article gives a good coverage of the topic. In there you can find this helpful statement: "The addition of an unetymological h- in Medieval Latin is most likely due to early pseudo-historical associations with the Huns who had settled Hungary prior to the Avars, as in Theophylactus Simocatta where he states, "Hunnougour, descendants of the Hun hords"." To me, there is a continual confusion, caused by anachronistic thinking, among Huns, Magyars and Hungarians, and the term Hungarian only adds to this confusion. Magyar is very clear and appropriate in the context of tribes and to that time frame. Hungarian tends to denote the modern nation, after the Magyar tribes settled in Pannonia and after the other modern nations started to use the exonym term till it became common. (unsigned - User:Codrinb, 17.36)

Dear Codrinb: (1) first of all, I do not get what you mean by "anachronistic idea" (in your edit tag). This article should reflect the *current* English usage and it is not relevant what the etymology of a word in the title is. There are thousands of English works using the phrase "Hungarian tribes" [5], so it is crystal clear that this expression is (also) very common in English. Moreover, (2) it would be interesting to hear what confusion could arise from talking about "Hungarian tribes" instead of "Magyar tribes" (apart from the one you mentioned about the Huns, which sounds highly unlikely to me). It would be especially interesting to me, since I think that the word "Magyar" is the one that adds only confusion and leaves the reader in an uneasy condition of feeling he is not completely following what is being written. Finally, (3) could you cite some sources claiming that "Hungarian tends to denote the modern nation, after the Magyar tribes settled in Pannonia and after the other modern nations started to use the exonym term till it became common." or is it your own intuition about these words? Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, you will see a perfect illustration of the dangers of using "Hungarian" in the ridiculous title of our Hungarian prehistory. An article with that title ought to be about the prehistory of Hungary or maybe the Carpathian Basin, but in fact has nothing about this at all & is all about the earlier history of the Magyar tribes way off to the East before they moved to Hungary. Unlike this one, that article badly needs either renaming or merging with this one (probably the best option). Johnbod (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "Hungarian prehistory" is so "ridiculous" that hundreds of scholarly works use it [6]. And I am sorry, but do not get your argument about its confusing nature. Why should it be about the prehistory of Hungary or the Carpathian Basin? If the title was "Prehistory of Hungary", then I would understand. But it is "Hungarian prehistory", i.e., "Prehistory of Hungarians". Obviously, "Hungarians" and "Hungary" are not the same... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:39, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, 1800 to be precise. But most of them are using it for "Prehistory of Hungary" which is what the term will always suggest to an English speaker. It's true some are using it for the "prehistory" of the Magyars back in the Ukraine or futher East, but that really is a specialized usage that we should avoid in a Wikipedia title. "Prehistory of the Magyar peoples" is much better, showing how useful the distinction available in English, but not in Hungarian, is. I'm afraid English-speakers expect noun and adjectival forms of countries to refer to the same thing, so it is not at all obvious that "Hungarian" and "Hungary" could refer to different things. As far as the English-speaking world is concerned "Hungary" is essentially a geographic expression, "Hungarians" are people that live there, and "Hungarian" is the adjective covering both. Johnbod (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear Codrinb. Could you please check the origin of the word "Hungarian"? At the time of the Hungarian conquest (9th and 10th centuries), ethnic Hungarians were always called "Hungarians" ( "Ungri", "Hungri", "Ungari", "Hungari" ) by western contemporary sources. If you read carefully article of Name of Hungary you will see Huns have nothing to do with the word "Hungary" because the name "Hungary" comes from "Ungri/Ungari". Hungarians were known as "Hungarians" !before! the conquest of Hungary (e.g. 862 -Ungri, 881-Ungari). Only some Arabic authors mentioned the term "Magyar". Byzantine authors used the "Turk" form.Fakirbakir (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If everyone called them "Ungari" why did they called themselves "Magyars"? The Name of Hungary article presents alternative etymologies, like the one I copied here, with the Huns confusion. You seem to insist on another possible etymology which I don't exclude. But that is your predicament. The anachronism consists in the mix up and confusion in Middle Ages and in the present, even among some of the Wikipedians in this thread, among Huns, migrating Magyar tribes and settled, modern Hungarians. The Hungarian prehistory is a ridiculous name for that article since it mostly covers Middle Ages migrations while the term Prehistory is to be used for pre-Classical times. Probably it has to do with the fact that the Magyars were the last to arrive in Europe, they did it quite late and there is a need to "catch-up" with others in terms of "pre-history". That 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. Of course such an article won't touch on Magyars at all but other cultures, including Dacians, Celts and Illyrians and I am sure some nationalistic Hungarians (Magyars?) ;-) here won't like that. Some of the same people who want migrating Magyars to be called Hungarians, are usually insisting in many articles of the Romanian history to call Romanians (autonym), Vlachs (exonym). Sometimes they are right, sometimes they simply apply double standards depending on the agenda. BTW, 3310 hits for Magyar tribes vs 3150 hits for Hungarian tribes. So which one is used more literature? My last comments on this inflammable topic.--Codrin.B (talk) 13:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

OMG. "Nationalistic Hungarians"? What? If I followed your obviously false reasoning we could not really use "Romanians" and "Romania" words in connection with Middle Ages. Do you think that we should rename article of Romania in the Early Middle Ages because according to YOUR point of view its title is a simple "falsification of history"?!?! On the contrary, "Hungarians" word was a well know term for Magyars in the past (Middle Ages). The "Magyars" form was actually unknown (in western sources). Fakirbakir (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

It is hilarious!! I have read your comment again. Can you dear Codrinb understand that Hungarians had a lot of names in the past and they OBVIOUSLY used more than one name for themselves. Turks, Magyars, Hungarians. How do you know that which names were used in the 9th and 10th centuries? The written sources seemed to avoid "Magyars" word. I see it hurts that "Ungari" (Hungarian) meant "ethnic Hungarian". Fakirbakir (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, his comment was quite strange. But just look at the first image here, i.e., it shows Greater Romania (which is larger than Romania now). He uses the caption: "Romania - the way it should be.". It tells a lot. But, instead of talking about nationalism, let's try to avoid speculations about the motivations of editors, and focus on arguments. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I have just read another theory. It is possible that the name "Magyar" (Megyer) was only the name of Arpad's tribe. The federation, which consisted of at least seven Hungarian tribes, could have had entirely different name (e.g. "Ungri"). Fakirbakir (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

None of this is relevant. We do not title articles based on what people called things in the 9th century. Srnec (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

You actually explain that why we should use "Hungarian" instead of "Magyars". In the 21st century "Hungarian" is the only well known term in connection with ethnic Hungarians. An average English speaker has no idea what "Magyars" means. Wiki is for the laymen, not for scholars. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The google books links show Magyar is used by many popular guidebooks etc. In addition, to lay English readers, "Hungarians" are people who live in Hungary, not people who will move to Hungary in a century or two's time. They are not aware of "Hungarian" as a specific ethnicity, but as a territory-based descriptor, like the terms for other European countries. Note the distinction between "Germanic" and German" - people are only "German" when they are, or have been, within Germany (broadly defined). Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be confused. If my understanding is correct, you above suggested that the adjective "Hungarian" refers to the territory. What about the "Hungarian language"? Does this term cover all languages spoken in the territory of present-day Hungary or it is the language spoken by the majority of the Hungarians? What about territorial changes? If my understanding is correct, we should not speak of Slovaks before 1992 (they are Hungarians or Czechoslovaks). I think this would be absurd. Borsoka (talk) 12:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please don't be silly. It "is the language spoken by the majority of the Hungarians" - or to some extent by almost all of them I imagine. The average English-speaker is blissfully unaware of territorial changes & internal & external minorities. But these are not relevant to the current discussion. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

So, if my understanding is correct the Hungarian language is the language spoken by the Magyars (and this is clear for an average English-speaker), but that the Hungarians are those who speak the Hungarian language is a surprise for them. You might be surprised but for an average Hungarian-speaker Bath, Exeter, Plymouth, and many other towns in the UK are "only" towns or villages somewhere in Western Europe or in the USA or in Australia: should we merge all articles describing them in Hungarian wikipedia into one article "Unknown settlements somewhere in the world" for this reason? Sorry, but you are always referring to "average English-speakers" instead of reliable sources. You know being an average Hungarian-speaker I have no knowledge of average English-speakers, but I have access to lots of reliable sources written in English. Borsoka (talk) 17:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Then why, like the other Hungarians here, do you persist in ignoring the links to sources above, and the unanimous views of native English-speaking editors here, preferring "what the Hungarian language version crudely and directly translated into English comes out as"? What is a surprise for English-speakers is that peoples who never (yet) lived anywhere near Hungary might be called Hungarian (as I suspect you understand very well). Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please, note that it is not relevant which editors you think are Hungarians and which editors claim themselves native English speakers, simply, because we have no way to verify these hypotheses. Please, refer to reliable sources instead. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Because editors who oppose this proposal have not proven that reliable sources prefer this version. For instance, you have so far referred to the example of "Anglo-Saxon"/"English people" and you have also frequently made mention of "average English speakers". There are google search made above which suggests that the expression "Hungarian tribe" is widespread. Sorry, but I think an average English people would also be surprised if we began an article with the following sentence: "The Magyars, who spoke the Hungarian language, arrived in Hungary around 895." (You may not know, but before the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin, the main distinction between the Magyars/Hungarians and the Turkic tribes surrounding them was the language: the Magyars spoke the Hungarian language.) I am sure that "average English, Hungarian, Chinese, ..." speakers are often surprised when they read Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia (for instance, any article on chemics would surprise me, because I have very limited knowledge of chemistry), but this is not a reason to create our original terminology. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The directly comparable search shows that "Magyar" is more "widespread", and (subjectively) used by better quality sources. Those who want to change the existing title need to demonstrate their case, and have totally failed to do so. Instead it has become crystal clear that the proposal was only launched because Hungarian-speaking editors were unaware of the English terminology. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Johnbod, thank you for your above comments which makes a passing reference to the existence of reliable sources. Yes, you are right that both expressions ("Hungarian tribes" and "Magyar tribes") can be found in reliable sources. Actually, the number of sources is almost the same. You are right that "Hungarians from the Pontic steppes invading Hungary" may be a strange idea for English speakers, but the idea of "Magyars speaking the Hungarian language who invade Hungary" would likewise be a surprising idea for them. Actually, neither the Oxford nor the Cambridge version of English dictionaries list the world "Magyar". Therefore I still suggest that the article should be renamed. Borsoka (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense: as already pointed out, "Magyar" has always been in the main OED, and it is also in the Concise Oxford Dictionary, a basic dictionary for the English-speaking market. It won't be in every one of their vast range of dictionaries for foreign students. Other publishers will be the same. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Johnbod, you know I am only one of the foreigners for whom that vast range of lower quality dictionaries (those without the expression "Magyar") are published and sold by the two universities. I would really appreciate if you cite what are the definitions for "Magyar" and "Hungarian" in those high quality dictionaries you have. Does the expression "Magyar" also refer to the language spoken by the Magyars, according to those dictionaries? Or did the Magyars speak the Hungarian language somewhere in the Eurasian steppes? Borsoka (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The Canadian Oxford Dictionary (2nd ed.) says for Magyar "1. a member of a Ural-Altaic people now predominant in Hungary. 2. the language of this people; Hungarian." Srnec (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

My 1995 COD is identical. The original OED has 1) at greater length, 2) the same, and the adjective (B) "Of or pertaining to the Magyars, or to the language of the Magyars". "Magyarism ("the principles of Magyar patriotism"), Magyarize, Magyarised, Magyarizing" and "Magyarization" are also given, some defined. Personally I think 2), the language, is old-fashioned in English as a term for the modern language, & would never argue for WP using it in preference to "Hungarian". Johnbod (talk)

OED is not a "Bible". These dictionaries are actually quite useless IMO. I cite the Collins, Magyar: 1, "(plural) -yars. a member of the predominant ethnic group of Hungary, also found in NW Siberia :D :D :P 2, the Hungarian language. The Chambers says, Magyar: 1, an individual belonging to the predominant race of people in Hungary, also found in NW Siberia. :D :D :P 2, the Hungarian language. adj 1, belonging or relating to the Magyars or their language. 2 (magyar) said of a garment: cut, made, knitted, etc with the sleeves in one piece with the rest of the garment. Poor scholars can not even locate the Hungarian "homeland" properly, but these dictionaries each have a super-secret think-tank group..... NW Siberia.....Fakirbakir (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Well at least I hope you have finally stopped claiming that Magyar was "not a naturalized English word". Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you all. And what do these high quality editions write of "Hungarian"? Borsoka (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The Chambers: "Hungarian: adj 1, belonging or relating to Hungary, a republic in central Europe, or its inhabitants. 2, belonging or relating to the official language of Hungary, also spoken in parts of Romania, belonging to the Finno-Ugric language family. noun 1, a citizen or inhabitant of, or person born in, Hungary. 2, the Magyar or Hungarian language." The Collins: "Hungarian: noun 1, the official language of Hungary, also spoken in Romania and elsewhere, belonging to the Finno-Ugric family and most closely related to the Ostyak and Vogul languages of NW Siberia 2, a native, inhabitant, or citizen of Hungary 3, a Hungarian-speaking person who is not a citizen of Hungary, adjective 1, of or relating to Hungary, its people, or their language." Fakirbakir (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. So "Hungarian tribes" is not even correct until they arrive in Hungary. Johnbod (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

According to you, but according to these [7] sources, it is a correct term. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha! According to the dictionaries, and note how "Magyar (Hungarian) tribes" occurs twice in the first 2 pages of the search, and how none of the 1st two pages are books by English-speaking specialists on the early Medieval period. Johnbod (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am still saying that "Magyar" is not a naturalized English word. It is a Hungarian word. Scholars may know it, but I doubt wiki readers do (they are not historians). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Me, too, though I am well aware that it is *occasionally* used to denote ethnic Hungarians. Please, also see what Encyclipaedia Britannica writes [8]: "Hungarian, also called Magyar, member of a people speaking the Hungarian language of the Finno-Ugric family and living primarily in Hungary, but represented also by large minority populations in Romania, Croatia, Vojvodina (Yugoslavia), Slovakia, and Ukraine. Those in Romania, living mostly in the area of the former Magyar Autonomous Region (the modern districts [judete] of Covasna, Harghita, and Mureş), are called Szeklers." [...] So "Hungarian" is not the same as citizen of Hungary, according to Britannica. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "Magyar" for both modern Hungarian-speakers or ethnics and for the miodern language is rather old fashioned. I would not support retitling either Hungarian people or Hungarian (language). But as a term for the Early Medieval peoples, the searches above have shown it is (by a small margin) the most common term, and used by the best sources to follow. The Hungarian editors have been contorting themselves into impossible positions to ignore this fact, bercause it does not suit their preconceptions or what they leant at school about English terms. English uses two terms where Hungarian uses one - deal with it! Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod: regarding your comments about "Hungarian editors", please, read these two comments of mine: [9][10] And I do not really get what "fact" the supporters of the move try to ignore: the difference between the usage of the two terms are without doubt statistically insignificant (we can agree that the database of GoogleBooks is incomplete, i.e., it is only a sample of all the books of the world written in English). Therefore, the decision cannot be made based solely on the number of these GB results, since the two numbers are so close to each other. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear Johnbod, I highly appreciate your phychological approach when you are attempting to understand the motivation of other editors even if it is out of scope in this debate. However, I have not read the Cambridge or Oxford definitions for "Hungarian". For instance, a Collins definition cited above ("of or relating to Hungary, its people, or their language") seems to cover all Hungarian-speaking individuals, tribes and parrots. Why should we force millions of native English speakers, who have never heard of the Magyars, to learn a new word for "Hungarians". If I were you I would probably write that you only insist on using the "Magyar" expression, because the fact that you know this word proves for you that you are not only superior to foreigners (who are forced to learn a number of languages in school), but also to "average English speakers" who have never heard of this word. But I am not a psychologist. I also doubt that the billions of non-native speakers who use English WP will whenever use the word "Magyar": you know they learn English from those lower quality dictionaries published and sold to them by British universities. The "Hungarian tribes" expression is used by reliable sources, therefore it can be used in WP as well. Borsoka (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Johnbod: regarding your comment about the "best sources", here are some sources published by the Oxford University Press or the Cambridge University Press which use the term "Hungarian tribes": [11][12][13][14]. BTW: I do not think that the works (written in English) published, for example, by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, would be less good or relevant. I just wanted to emphasize that there are also books published by some of the mainstream international publishers which use the term "Hungarian tribes". On the other hand, deciding which sources are the "best" is a bit subjective. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support per above arguments by Koertefa and Fakirbakir. Magyar=Hungarian in English language, it's clear. --85.238.87.239 (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: ISP's first edit. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support. WP:COMMONNAME and WP:ENGLISH. "Hungarian" is well-known and widely used.--Rovibroni (talk) 10:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose-Per Johnbod and Srnec. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Johnbod and Srnec. There is a meaningful distinction. bobrayner (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

What is that meaningful distinction? I do not get it. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a meaningful distinction in usage among English-speakers.Try the Encyclopedia of European Peoples, edited by Carl Waldman and Catherine Mason (New York: 2006). It has entries on "Hungarians: nationality" and on "Magyars". It notes that the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but itself observes a distinction between the Magyars ("a steppe people") who settled in what became Hungary from the Hungarians ("an ethnic mix"). Its article on the Magyars stops with the coronation of Stephen I. The Hungarian article has a timeline that starts with two events: the settlement of the Carpathian Basin in 896 and the reign of Stephen from 997 to 1038. All the other events on the timeline are later. Do you get it yet?

If you are still unclear, look up Andrew C. Janos, The Politics of Backwardness in Hungary, 1825–1945 (Princeton: 1982), p. xxv, where the author lays out the problem ("In the Magyar language only the former [Magyar] is known, while in English customary usage favors the latter [Hungarian]") and proposes that "for our purposes a distinction may be useful ... the term Hungarian will be used to denote association with the legal entity, whereas Magyar will be used to designate ethnic solidarity and affiliation by language". Srnec (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your cited sources are not worth too much because -I think you know well- "Hungarians" did not have a wider meaning before the Age of Enlightenment or more accurately before the Age of Nationalism. Your expression "Hungarians ("an ethnic mix")" makes only sense in the Modern Era, however it is senseless in the Middle Ages (until the 14th century) because the term "Hungarian" meant only "ethnic Hungarian" (irrespective of the fact that steppe peoples are quite heterogeneous). Written sources called Magyars "Hungarians" BEFORE the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin when they still lived in Etelköz (in 837 "Ungri" by Georgius Monachus, in 862 - "Ungri" (Annales Bertiniani), 881- "Ungari" (Annales ex Annalibus Iuvavensibus)). You should understand that the vast majority of laymen has never heard about the term "Magyars" and they would prefer to use the WELL KNOWN "Hungarian" form. I am pretty sure medievalists would be more careful with the word "Hungarian" because of its origin (from the word "Onogur" or from the old Russian word "Yugra") and would not try to mix its meaning with modern concepts (e.g. "Hungarian citizenship" or "Natio Hungarica").Fakirbakir (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

And what about the well-established term "Hungarian Sword style" for works (from Hungary of course) of the last centuries BC? The useful distinction in English has been patiently explained to you several times, and we are now just going round in circles. Time to close this. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you really base your argument on "ethnic mix"?? Hahoo, Europe is one big ethnic bazaar, of course it changed, like every other ethnic groups, so why do you want to call Hungarians on a not English and not widely (not commonly) used name so desperate? Hungarians always maintained it's cultural integrity from the surrounding other groups, before 1000 and after 1000 too. - And I still waiting for bobrayner's and QatarStarsLeague's comments on this topic. After all, it isn't just a popularity vote. --Csendesmark (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It is interesting that the standard English translations of primary sources connected to the history of the Hungarians before their conquest of the Carpathian Basin, always use the term "Hungarian". For instance, the standard translation of the Annals of St-Bertin by Janet L. Nelson (ISBN 978-0-7190-3426-8) writes of a raid by the "Hungarians" in East Francia in 862 (page 102). Likewise, the English version of the Life of Constantine by Marvin Kantor (ISBN 0-930042-44-1) refers to an encounter between the "Hungarians" and the future St Cyril in the Crimea in the early 860s (page 45). Do we suggest that scholars who prepared these standard translations had no knowledge of the proper English usage? Borsoka (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No. Their usage is entirely acceptable. As is ours. You still don't get it. Srnec (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please help to understand your approach. Do you think that the expression "Hungarian" includes the nomadic tribes roaming somewhere in the Eurasian steppes who spoke a Finno-Ugric idiom (as it is suggested by lots of reliable sources, including the standard translations of the above cited primary sources)? Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (October 2013)

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Magyar tribes → Hungarian tribes –

"The Hungarian endonym is "magyar", from Old Hungarian "mogyër". The name is taken from "magyeri" (9th-10th century; now known as "Mëgyër"), one of the seven major semi-nomadic Hungarian tribes (the others being: Tarján, Jenő, Kér, Keszi, Kürt-Gyarmat, and Nyék) which became dominant after the ascension of one its members—Árpád—and his subsequent dynasty. The tribal name "Megyer" became "Magyar" referring to the Hungarian people as a whole."

The term "Magyar" was only the name of the most prominent Hungarian tribe. Why should we call them "Magyar tribes"? There were no "Magyar" tribes but "Hungarian" ("Ungri" or "Ungari") tribes. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Barely three weeks since last move request was rejected. Zarcadia (talk) 23:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter. There were no real answers. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. A Hungarian is someone from Hungary, or someone with ancestors from Hungary. So people living before the creation of the Hungarian state should not be called Hungarians. If they were living in places that are well outside the boundaries of modern Hungary, such as central Russia, the usage is clearly wrong. Many sources, both popular and scholarly, make this distinction. See Will to Survive (2011) by Bryan Cartledge, currently Amazon's No. 2 selling history of Hungary. Chapter 1 is entitled "The Magyars (400 BC-1000 AD)". Chapter 2 is "The Young Hungarian State (1000-1301)". Ich weiß dass nicht (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Pls read the previous debate.Your reasoning is incorrect. The English "Hungarian" comes form the Latin "Ungri" or "Ungari". Written sources called Hungarians "Ungri" before the establishment of "Hungary" (895 AD). Fakirbakir (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy close this does not cover any new territory not explored in the last requested move that closed less than a month ago. -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 05:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy close? You unfortunately did not read properly the previous debate. They closed the dispute without soothing answers. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy close The title of the article should reflect usage by WP:RS in English, whether that is logical or not. You may not find that "soothing" but it is the answer. Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The argument of the proposer are logical, but I think moving it would cause confusion. Regardless of the origins of the words (which are far too obscure for a passing reader looking for the correct article), "Magyar Tribes" is the only name I have ever seen in any literature, and "Magyar" is used near universally to refer to all of the tribes (as Ich weiß dass nicht shows above). Also, labeling something "Hungarian" has strong insinuations about the modern day geography: these tribes are not originally from the country of Hungary, and they occupied an area far larger than the borders of Hungary we know today. --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Speedy close - Having read the previous move request, which ended barely 3 weeks ago, I'd support speedy close. This is just raking over old ground. --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

So, Do you agree that the term "Magyar" was used to designate all Hungarian tribes (I refer to written sources)? Fakirbakir (talk) 08:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I tend to disaprove the affirmation The term "Magyar" was only the name of the most prominent Hungarian tribe. - what is it based on? Taking a look at Google Books sources, it seems that both names ("Magyar tribes" and "Hungarian tribes") are almost equally used (3160 vs 3060 results), so I don't think a move is appropriate 79.117.175.79 (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It is based on scholarly works.[15][16][17][18] Fakirbakir (talk) 11:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons as a month ago. A suggestion to the nominator: if you are disturbed by the quality of the arguments in an RM, wait more than a month (at least 6-12 months) and then renominate it to see of you can get input from different users. This is a little too soon. —  AjaxSmack  21:09, 3 October 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.