This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
@Magysze: please read WP:NOR before creating an article about the non-existing Szekely (sic!) language. Please note that user Hortobagy who used to push thě same agenda was banned from editing. Borsoka (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am reading NOR and I don't know what are you afraid of. It's a new article. Szekely language has its own script. Magysze (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have not referred to a single reliable source using the term "Szekely language". Borsoka (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you call dialect can be very well understood as language as well.
Welcome sign in Latin and in Old Szekely script for the town of Vonyarcvashegy (𐲮𐳛𐳚𐳀𐳢𐳄𐳮𐳀𐳤𐳏𐳉𐳎), Hungary It does have its recognized writing system right? Magysze (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From the article Origin of Szekelys.. According to a widely accepted modern hypothesis, the Székelys were originally a Turkic people who joined the Magyars in the Pontic steppes. Magysze (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And most modern Hungarians descended from Slavic and Germanic ancestors. Can we say they speak a non-Hungarian language (although it is identical with the Hungarian language)? Borsoka (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have source to say that modern Hungarians descend from Slavic?? and German ancestors? I have never heard about this before.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 16:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have no knowledge of the Hungarians, their history and their language. Borsoka (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am Hungarian and I don't see any source from you. What you do is acting against Anti-Szekely identity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magysze (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Térmezsetesen, ha akaröd fojtathatyuk magyarül. Borsoka (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could in Szekely language, that you don't speak it. Magysze (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, you can change your ethnicity any time. OK, we can continue in "Szekely language". You can write me any messages in "Szekely". Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't read Szekely script because you're a POV pusher, ultranationalist. Magysze (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can read it. In Hungary, the names of thousands of settlements are also written in "Szekely" script along the roads. Look at the picture above: Vonyarcvashegy is a Hungarian village and its name is written in both Latin and "Szekely" script. Borsoka (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can't read Szekely script. That's for sure. Szekely people were oppressed by Hungarians.
I can. Make a try. Borsoka (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your theory on Szekely people is just theory. Nothing practical. Magysze (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You pretended that you are Hungarian (or Szekely?) and your statements proved false. Why did you pretend it? Borsoka (talk) 17:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Szekely and you might be Hungarian (or Slavic or German as you said) but we 2 are different. As it is. Why you don't recognize me and respect me? Magysze (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are neither Szekely, nor Hungarian. You are quite obviously a chauvinist PoV-pushing Romanian editor. Borsoka (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not mention "Szekely language". Borsoka (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is in the text, ohh sorry, I forgot you can't read it. That is because you're not Szekely. Magysze (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The text is written in Latin. Borsoka (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why even discuss a primary source depicted in a blog? Magysze, get familiar with the basics of WP. This is not a forum. And Borsoka, I advise to not take any further bait. –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Szekely language was at begining Avar language (Turkish) origin. Has nothing to do with Hungarian. This has to appear in the text, because it's sourced.
An article about Hungarian dialects has no reason to say anything about a language that isn't a dialect of Hungarian, just as it has no reason to include sourced information about goldfish or golf or galaxies. Largoplazo (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If (NB: if) a group of people undergoes language shift and we describe the language that is presently spoken by this group of people, the previously spoken language is only relevant for such a description if it has left visible traces in the currently spoken language, as e.g. in the case of Hazargi. But the crux here is that no such traces are found in the Szekely dialect(s) of Hungarian, which makes linguistic evidence in fact the "crown witness" against the conjecture of an origin of the Szekelys seperate from the bulk of Hungarians. –Austronesier (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My observation was in the context of Magysze's assertion that the purported Turkic language has nothing to do with Hungarian. I might have elaborated that merely being a language once spoken by a people who today speak Hungarian doesn't make it relevant to Hungarian dialects or justify mentioning it in the article about them. Largoplazo (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The census said in 1992 that are 2.165 only. Now in 2021 there are 40,000???? Is this bombastic inflate of numbers the piece of art of Boroska? Magysze (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are no inline citations in the article for any of these numbers. I will say that speaker numbers for endangered languages/dialects can vary widely according to methodology and questioner, particularly when it is a second language for most speakers.--Bob not snob (talk) 07:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Last time, you said I need to provide a source. Show me the source for 40,000. Because the official census says about 2.165 only. Magysze (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not the census data was described, and remain in the talk page until the end of the discussion.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Well, census data is sourced, do you have more reliable sources than census??? I don't think so. Magysze (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you did not understand what that setion is about...(KIENGIR (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND. You have a problem with inflating numbers. That doesn't make you more people. And stop thinking that Csango are Hungarians, or Szeklers are Hungarians, that's racism of you. Magysze (talk) 17:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are simply refuse to get the point, as well you should stop at once your insults.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
KIENGIR, I don't understand. Where are you getting that 40,000 figure from? What is your source for that? What am I missing here? El_C 18:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, see Bob snots comment e.g. , I just restored status quo, it's a broad estimation, and not the census data. Please note the user did not add any source and as I said, that section is not about censuses, the reasons do not matter if you check the trolling of other articles, reasons will be invented. See also here [[1]], or here [[2]]. Just only matters to deteriorate and tire the other party...or here ([3])..do not suggest rational behavior, because there is not such...(KIENGIR (talk) 18:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
KIENGIR, I'm asking who has come up with that estimate? Where did it come from? Your answer isn't a simple one and just serves to further confuse me. Oh, and as for that particular provocateur, I've already indefinitely blocked them, so they're no longer part of the conversation. El_C 18:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El_C, I've just looked up now the edit history upon your request. This edit: ([4]).(KIENGIR (talk) 18:55, 14 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
This paper mentions a figure of 70,000 speakers, which strikes me as odd, and it is unclear how the author come to such a conclusion. Another source speaks of 48,000 bilinguals in 2010. –Austronesier (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KIENGIR, what can I say? You still speak in riddles that I am unable to immediately parse. Austronesier, thanks for providing high-quality sources, especially that last peer reviewed one. My suggestion would be to add it, specifically, as an inline citation. El_C 01:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I try to clarify, I reacted to this questions of yours I'm asking who has come up with that estimate? Where did it come from? -> (my answer): This edit: [diff], meaning this edit introduced the content in which the referred section was included. I hope you could decipher me :), Austronesier, thank you, you may add the sources (and 70000 is totally ok and not odd (see main page), there have been even more before back in history.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]
.JPG)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Controversy on Szekely language. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15#Controversy on Szekely language until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. KIENGIR (talk) 00:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)