Talk:Demographics of Hungary

Archives

Interesting Figure

Just look at the historical population chart of Hungary, it shows that by 1800 there were about 3 million population. consider the area occupied by Hungarians and the long history of it, its population size is really a small one, probably the smallest population size of any significant country in EU, by the time of 1800, Russians had a population of about 40 million and Ukrainian had 10 millions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.117.230.34 (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is because of the Turkish Wars and occupation of 1526-1699. If one looks at the population growth of Portugal on Population Statistics, it increased from 1,100,000 in 1527 to 2,140,000 in 1732, to 2,970,000 in 1801, to 5,450,000 in 1900 and 10,230,600 to in 2000, all in all an increase of 94.55% between 1527 and 1732, and an increase of 830.05% between 1527 and 2000. Had Hungary, minus Croatia, with a population of 4,000,000 in 1526 followed a non-war population increase, it would have had a population of around 10,800,000 in 1801, 19,818,000 in 1900 (compared with the actual of 16,838,000 in 1900 minus Croatia-Slavonia) and of 37,202,000 in 2000. However when combining the various censuses of 2000, 2001 and 2002 for the Carpathian Basin territory, only 26,369,757 inhabitants (26,410,000 rounded including the Polish areas) lived there (10,198,315 in Hungary, 7,221,733 in Romania/Transylvania, 5,379,455 in Slovakia, 1,794,628 in Serbia, 1,254,614 in Ukraine, 277,569 in Austria, 161,059 in Croatia and 82,384 in Slovenia with about 40,000 in Poland around Orawa-Spiss).

Also, going by the 'average' of Hungary being 78.63% Hungarian in 1490 (all of the 15 listed sources percentages added up and divided by 15), one would have expected 8,492,000 Hungarians in 1801, 15,583,000 in 1900 and 29,252,000 in 2000, assuming no Magyarization, no immigration to Hungary and no emigration from Hungary. However, according to the 1900 census, there were only 8,588,834 Hungarians in Hungary, of whom 594,281 were Jews and a sizable number, perhaps even equal to the Jewish portion, being minorities who listed themselves as Hungarians. All in all the real figure being less than half the hypothetical figure had the Turkish Wars not consumed Hungary. As of 2001-2002, there were only 11,806,952 Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin (9,416,045 in Hungary, 1,415,718 in Transylvania, 520,528 in Slovakia, 284,772 in Backa/Banat(Serbia), 151,500 in Transcarpathia(Ukraine), 7,187 in Baranya/Medimurje(Croatia), 6,498 in Prekmurje(Slovenia) and 4,704 in Burgenland (Austria), and this figure counts a sizable Gypsy minority. Even counting that minority, the actual Hungarian population is only about 40% as large as the hypothetical one had the Turkish Wars not occurred. Prussia1231 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1720 Figure is Unreliable

The 1720 figure of 3,500,000 people inhabiting Hungary with only 1,225,000 or 35% of whom are Hungarians seems at the very least illogical, if not skewed. The fact that in 1711 one had 1,600,000 Hungarians out of a population of 3,000,000 supports that. In order for the 1720 figure to be accurate, the population of Hungary would have had to increase by 16.7%, while the ethnic Hungarian population would have to decrease by 30.6%. Given that the wars had ended by 1711 and that there is no recorded large-scale flight from Hungary around this time, that seems impossible. Even if one assumes that there was no growth in the ethnic Hungarian population between 1711 and 1720, it would still make Hungary 46% Hungarian, a far cry from 35%. I see no point in keeping this 1720 estimate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prussia1231 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right, this figure is not well established. Due to the new -partly- foreign settlers (from 1711 to 1780) the the native Hungarian population ratio decreased however this the demographic effect was grown up to the end of the 18th century. We should withdraw that number.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't be sure which one of the two sources is right and which one is wrong. I agree that it is a contradiction, but perhaps the percentages given by Historical World Atlas. With the commendation of the Royal Geographical Society. Carthographia, Budapest, Hungary are overestimated. I do not support the deletion of that number before a discussion on this talk page (Iaaasi (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Hungarian(Magyar) population had to be around 50% in Kingdom of Hungary around 1700 however this percentage started to decrease immediately -irrespective of the expectant German settlers- because of the new waves of Serb, Croat and Romanian etc. settlers from abroad as well (Croatia is 'abroad' in this case). By 1720, it was around 45-50%. After the Kuruc wars we must not forget that 800 new German villages were built in Kingdom of Hungary between 1711 and 1780. How could we explain that German 'mass' at the end of the 18th century? If it had been 35% in 1720, the Hungarian (Magyar) population would have been around 15% to 1780.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look in The Ottomans and the Balkans: a discussion of historiography, By Fikret Adanır, Suraiya Faroqhi and I found the information that the real percentage of Hun. at the end of the 15th century would be 60-70%, and not 80% how it is written now. So a new contradiction(Iaaasi (talk) 16:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You are right, I am going to seek more sources about these ratios because there are too many contradictions.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please show me these data in the source text? The only thing I can find is that the initial no of Hungarians was 400,000 (Iaaasi (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Cited from there: "Estimates are that about 400,000 people made up the exodus, in seven Magyar, one Kabar, and other smaller tribes."

Cited from there: "Romans, Goths, Huns, Slavs, and other peoples had previously occupied the region, but at the time of the Magyar migration, the land was inhabited only by a sparse population of Slavs, numbering about 200,000."

I just summed it. 400.000+200.000 (It also means that 66% of the total population)Fakirbakir (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Transylvania

The 53% - 39% percentages do not seem to be correct. Here it is written that the Romanians were at least 48% in the ceded area. Some statistics are also presented in this article. We should include the 1940 Romanian estimation too (Iaaasi (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

True, We can use that source. We should present the Romanian estimations as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted this source to the page of Second Vienna Award. I have checked page of Northern Transylvania. It contains that source.

"Historian Keith Hitchins (Hitchins 1994) summarizes the situation created by the award: Far from settling matters, the Vienna Award had exacerbated relations between Rumania and Hungary. It did not solve the nationality problem by separating all Magyars from all Rumanians. Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Rumanians, or 48 per cent to over 50 per cent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used, remained north of the new frontier, while about 500,000 Magyars (other Hungarian estimates go as high as 800,000, Rumanian as low as 363,000) continued to reside in the south."

Fakirbakir (talk) 10:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missed subject?

Well, as most other "Demographics" articles, I think that this article should contain only data about current demographics of Hungary and that data about historical demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary should be moved to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hungary Opinions? PANONIAN 18:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I do not think so. Kingdom of Hungary is just one table here and if we talk about Hungary it has to contain historical data from 895 to 2011. Principality of Hungary, Kingdom of Hungary, Word Wars, Socialist era etc. How could we explain the demographic processes(population trends, languages, fertility, migration, health etc) of Hungary without the past? This article is not complete and it should not need to be split. Demographics of the Kingdom of Hungary should have to be improved too, however this historical data needs to be here as well because the article is more understandable with that.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV presentation of early demographics

Ok, let discus this from the point of scientific objectivity. It is not disputed that this source mention that 400,000 Hungarians settled among 200,000 Slavs. The disputed issue is the question why this source is used as "the only truth" when numerous other sources are contradicting to this. For example, this source claims that "Hungarian language was spoken only by knights and nobility" in the early Kingdom of Hungary, while this source claims that the "Magyar genetic contribution was not enough to alter the population's predominant genetic similarity to its neighbors". This source claims that "very few of the ancient Magyar genes remain among modern Hungarians". These are valid academic references and there is no reason that they are ignored. Part of the article that speaks about time of Hungarian arrival to Central Europe should be rewritten to reflect more balanced approach that will reflect data from mentioned sources. PANONIAN 15:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above concerns the time of the foundation of Hungary (895) therefore there is no contradiction between them and the original statement. You are taking the second source out of context, which talks about "Hungary came to rule over Walachia Bosnia and Serbia" Showing that the period that the source talks about is different, not to mention using extreme POV terms as "magyarization" in a 14th century context with no explanation or factual basis (a 19th century concept, such as nationalism, equally nonsense in the 14th century context). By usage of this term the source contradicts itself. Hungarian was widely spoken by the population this is why other population segments slowly assimilated to it (a completely different concept from magyarization). Finally modern genetical research findings should be included in genetics themed articles and have no direct relevance to historical topics. Not to mention that a population living in the Carpathian basin for over 1100 years would be surprising if they did not intermarry and mix with other population groups during that period. Hobartimus (talk) 11:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So? It is just your personal opinion. Do you have any evidence for such claims? We have here one academic source that say that "Hungarian language initially was spoken only by knights and nobility" and here we have another one which say that "very few of the ancient Magyar genes remain among modern Hungarians". It is quite evident that these sources referring to origin of modern Hungarians and that first one referring to the period of creation of the Principality of Hungary in Central Europe. Tell me, why you removed that info from the article? As a Serb, I am proud that my ancestors were not only Slavs, but also Illyrians and Sarmatians, so I do not understand why would you deny your own genetic origin? PANONIAN 13:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue like this you'll get blocked for sure. Just sayin. Referring to your last sentence of course. The evidence is already in the article, which contains the population data for Hungary based off of many sources. The first source does not refer to what you say. It is quote obvious too, talking about "knights and nobility", which are features of a kingdom, which Hungary was not at the time... The same sentence mentions "Hungary came to rule over Walachia Bosnia and Serbia" which is a sentence completely disconnected from the 895 and shows, which is also evident from the book title, that this is not a topic dealing with Hungarian history, it mentions all this in passing, jumping several hundred years within sentences. I am sorry but this content is just not suitable for this article. Hobartimus (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed this discussion on the Administrator's noticeboard and am happy to offer my assistance to help have this issue resolved. Could you both briefly clarify the issues at hand so I can offer some advice? Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Problems with the first source presented by PANONIAN, (Ethnic groups and population changes in twentieth-century Central-Eastern) p 266, p. 267; It's a coverage of about a thousand year's worth of history in less than 2 pages (from the 800s to 1867) And there a sentence is mentioned in passing "Initially Hungarian was only spoken by knights and nobility" First we don't know what the sentence is referring to, and seems completely illogical. Even PANONIAN admits that Hungarians arrived to Hungary at some point in time. And that they (the Hungarians were speaking Hungarian...) were these Hungarians all knights and nobles? Hardly possible. I already mentioned the nonsensical term magyarization used in that early context, these are all signs of problems that come with forced inaccuracies when someone covers 1000 years in 1.5 pages. Can we agree to discount this source? (also consider the fact that a lot of sources already in the article directly contradict this one in addition to the already mentioned problems). Hobartimus (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the problem is that there are two opposite theories about ethnic composition of Principality of Hungary in the 9th-10th century. According to one theory (which is present by this source), that country had Hungarian majority (400,000 people) and Slavic minority (200,000 people). According to other sources (for example this one), Slavs were in majority and Hungarians were minority. User Hobartimus is trying to keep only first theory in article text and to remove mention of other theory. That is basic problem here. PANONIAN 15:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If both of the sources are relevant and reliable, what's wrong with stating something like, "In the 9th-10th century, the composition of Hungary's demographics was under dispute, some sources said X <reference> while others say Y <reference>. If both viewpoints are relevant and backed up by reliable sources, then a compromise is all that is needed. On Wikipedia, it's our role to report what reliable sources state on a subject. As long as you aren't overly presenting a minority viewpoint (see WP:UNDUE) then there should be no major issues with including both viewpoints. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that PANONIAN's source does not talk about the ethnic composition, it talks about language used, and does not mention any numbers, or even state which century is it referring to? (only say 'initially' while at the same sentence, mentioning Hungary ruling Serbia, Walachia, Bosnia and Dalmatia, at the time, bringing up the question which territory should be accounted for here in which century? And then about language used, language is not always even relevant in the middle ages in terms of deciding demographic composition. For example someone speaking latin (language of the church at the time and all around common language) couldn't be Hungarian? I know of several counter-examples from the middle ages. Hobartimus (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source mentioned earlier [1] (have to click page 266 to see the whole page). Hobartimus (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, it, the reference that actually quotes the dates and figures of populations is quite explicit. The estimated dates and population is in black and white on the page. The other references, as I've seen, don't actually list dates or figures. While this isn't a major issue, the reference does not clarify the dates period the population demographics was sampled. It looks quite vague to me. I'm not saying we can't incorporate the contents into the article, what I'm saying is that the first reference gives dated facts and figures, which the other references does not directly contradict, and seems a bit vague to me. Adding details of what the second source says, sure. But removing the info provided by the first source would be unwise, as it appears to me the info in the reference backs up the content in the article. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to bed for the evening, I will review these discussions in the morning. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand

Don't understand why is this necessary? [2] I'm ready to discuss with you every issue that you have. Hope we can keep these personal notifications to a minimum in the future. Hobartimus (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that against any rule here? I can have personal correspondence with other users here, can I? I do not understand why you track my edits and look with whom I talk on private pages? PANONIAN 16:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can have personal correspondence, but then you could for example have the same correspondence (notification) towards user:Rovibroni and user:Fakirbakir as well. Because otherwise it would seem that we don't get enough diverse opinion... My suggestion was that we simply talk about it, in the future, I don't think this issue is so big like you make it out to be. We could have solved this between the two of us from the start. Hobartimus (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you examine again my comment addressed to used Iadrian yu, you will see that I just asked him for opinion about the issue - I did not asked him to "come here and vote" or something like that. :) It is my personal business whom I will ask for opinion about various subjects. And if we "could have solved this between the two of us" what that solution might be? Do you accept that data about 25,000 Hungarians is included or not? PANONIAN 16:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you think that I should ask some other users for opinion, you should remember what happened when I done that last time: [3] :))) PANONIAN 16:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look it's your business who you ask for opinions but I don't want to get into a situation where I would need to ask others for opinions too. I do not want to do that. I'd rather we could talk about stuff, without any problems, that's all. And I realized that it already happened, so I wasn't talking about this time. But what happens in the future and asking you if you could avoid this type of stuff in the future or not. Hobartimus (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to ask for opinion whom ever you want. Why would I should have any problem with that? PANONIAN 17:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

Well, Hobartimus, you objected that we do not have numbers. So, please see these additional sources that saying that only 25,000 Magyars crossed the Carpatians in the 9th century:

So, are you able to "defeat" validity of all these references or not? Due to all this, sentence in the article should say that, according to various sources, between 25,000 and 400,000 Magyars lived in the Principality of Hungary in the 9th-10th century. And in addition, we have now 5 sources with number of 25,000 and only one with number of 400,000, so the number of 25,000 looks like much stronger case here. :) PANONIAN 16:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is something we can discuss, let's start with the first one. At your link [9] we can read the 600 000 number as well right below the 25 000 number. But I'm not against adding more estimates but we have to work out some things as well like where to add them in the article, but let's discuss the source a bit more, the source itself mentions the 25 000 number as "excessively low". In other words you made a big misrepresentation above, because a lot of your sources mention 25 000 warriors which doesn't actually contradict a total population of 125 000 (20% militarization like in that example) or 250 000 (10% militarization) or even the 400 000 (in that case only 6,25% would be warriors). What is more your first source talks about 5000 warriors only so all the rest of your sources heavily contradict it :). Not only did you bring a source but you brought many counters to it as well. So this is a very important point not to confuse "warriors" with total population and we shouldn't try to misrepresent the numbers. Hobartimus (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this source say "25,000 individuals", not warriors. But, two descriptions are not contradicting one to another. It was common that various early medieval peoples and tribes were composed only of warriors. Even recently, we had Spanish conquistadors who conquered Mexico and married with local women (that is how modern Mestizo people emanated). In fact, it would be quite unlikely that Magyar warriors who came to conquer an land had their women, children and old people in their company. They obviously married local Slavic woman, exactly like Spanish conquistadors. Also, number of 25,000 is not "excessively low" - it is one that could best fit into research results of modern geneticists who claiming that Hungarians are not genetially different from neighboring Slavic peoples. In fact, if number of 25,000 is wrong then entire modern genetic science is wrong too. PANONIAN 17:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about you read the own source that you link? THAT SOURCE describes the 25 000 number is "excessively low" it is a direct quote from there. Your absurd theories about a population having "only warriors", "like spanish conqustadors" is also directly contradicted and denied by the same source which puts the number of warriors at 5000 while the total at 25000 meaning an 1:5 ratio of warriors to total population. You should at the very least read the sources that you link because writing "not excessively low" is unacceptable when that is exactly what you have linked above. In this all the sources agree, this one states it outright and all the others bring at least five times the numbers (starting at 125 000 total - 25 000 warriors). Hobartimus (talk) 17:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source (it is the same as PANONIAN's) ; [10] talks about "A total of 600,000 for the total Magyar population settling in the Carpathian Basin between 870 915 AD" So you see 400 000 mentioned by the other source is not something that remarkable indeed... Hobartimus (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So? Then article description should say between 25,000 and 600,000. This is exactly confirmation that number of 400,000 is not an example of "generally accepted truth". PANONIAN 17:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 25 000 number is contradicted by every other source thus far, and is described as "exceedingly low" by the source itself that it's in. That is the exact definition of a WP:FRINGE view, so I cannot accept that number as factual only in a sentence like, (this is just an example) "Some fringe theorists claimed that the total number of Hungarians were 25 000, however this is number is "exceedingly low" and is directly contradicted by accepted research putting the lowest realistic number for the total Hungarian population at 125 000" (5x the 25 000 warriors mentioned earlier). So yes I can accept it as a fringe view as described in the source (exceedingly low). But it cannot go into the article as factual information because it is not. Hobartimus (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way in the same book on page 21 that you quote it is mentioned that the highest estimate for the size of the Hungarian population at the time of the conquest is 1 070 000, which is over a million (Its in Eurasian studies yearbook, Volume 78 page 21.) Hobartimus (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of other data seems to be on page 21, But I can't get the thing to open up the whole page only bits and pieces. Page 21 seems to be where they have a collection of estimates about the size of the population. Other numbers there that I can see include 523 600, 400 000, 120 000, 750 000 [11], the 21th page is titled "Size of the Hungarian population at the time of the conquest", so these are all relevant numbers just can't see the whole page because of the prieview system. Hobartimus (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Hungarian and German speaking Jews in Hungary 1880-1910

Jews:

1880=624,826

1890=707,961

1900=831,162

1910=911,227

By Language:

1880: 362,399 Hungarian or 58.0%, 216,190 German or 34.6%, 46,237 Other or 7.4%,

1890: 450,971 Hungarian or 63.7%, 233,627 German or 33.0%, 23,363 Other or 3.3%

1900: 594,281 Hungarian or 71.5%, 208,622 German or 25.1%, 28,259 Other or 3.4%

1910: 700,734 Hungarian or 76.9%, 196,825 German or 21.6%, 13,668 Other or 1.5%

The trend is interesting as it shows the increased Magyarization, especially after 1890 with regard to the German-speaking Jewish population being reduced at the expense of the Hungarian-speaking Jewish population. These figures could also be helpful in establishing just how many 'ethnic Hungarians' there were in the pre-WWI census data. Prussia1231 (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Unreliable authors

Andrew L. Simon (a "board-certified urologist practicing in Brick, NJ") and A. Pidhainy (who is him?) look like unreliable authors. If there are no counter arguments, I will remove their works from the article. 178.41.146.129 (talk) 09:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew L. Simon: "The author, a professor of engineering for 30 years, reviews the status of America's undergraduate education using statistical data and numerous references".. But you are right he isn't a historian or a demographer. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A. Pidhainy is a historian. [12] [13] Fakirbakir (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fakirbakir, Pidhainy's work has been published in 1966 and the links you have provided are not about the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, but about bolshevism (published in 1974 and 1978). This is not a reliable source.--Ditinili (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just provided a source which proved that Pidhainy is a historian. In this topic, studies from historians (and demographers) are regarded as reliable sources. (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)) Fakirbakir (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In this topic" we follow standard rules and recommendations how to evaluate reliability. The referenced work has been published 50 years ago by the author who seems not to be an expert in the area. His qualification in the area of medieval Hungary and demographics really cannot be documented by 2 works about bolshevism. Note: the second one [14] is his thesis/dissertation published in 1978, but the referenced work is from 1966 (12 years earlier). I am not sure if he had any qualification in 1966. Maybe yes, maybe no - I have never heard about him and I cannot find any info. Ditinili (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Sisa does not look like a specialist either. He is not in the staff of an university. I think I am entitled to remove his nationalistic work.195.168.46.162 (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast, I am going to find out who he is. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Sisa (1918-2012) had a diverse life story. It seems he was a writer and editor at various publications. [15] Fakirbakir (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this is not enough. He is not a scholar, so I will remove his book from here. 88.80.225.28 (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Other opinions. It does not fairly represent all significant viewpoints. It must be clear also for Hungarian editors, that many non-Hungarian historians can hardly agree with such data as are presented here for middle ages. These views are completely ignored and there is not any mention about existing objections.
Sources. Let's look on percents for year 1490. One-half of references are completely outdated, 40-80 years old publications: 1971, 1966, 1967, 1969, 1941 (!!!), 1974. If you exclude these dinosaurs and include also sources as it is recommeded above, it looks very differently.
Neutrality. Theories like "According to the demographers, about 80 percent of the population was made up of Hungarians before the Battle of Mohács, however the Hungarian ethnic group became a minority in its own country" sound more like mid-war propaganda than serious analysis. After this complaint, the author remained silent about a minority policy in the 19th century.
Fringe theories. Data like "90% of Hungarians in 1490" can be presented only as a some kind of curiosity and with an explanation. Where did all other nationalities live? Where are Germans, Slovaks, Romanians and Ruthenians, etc? Are they in remaining 10%?--Ditinili (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"90% of Hungarians in 1490" I don't think that the medievalist George Richard Potter's opinion is fringe.... Anyway, why don't you contribute in the article instead of senseless accusations. ALL estimations are welcome. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Domokos Kosáry (the author of the study from 1941) is definitely NOT a dinosaur, it seems you are just trying to discredit some well-known historians. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fakirbakir, I have specific objections (e.g. missing opposite views) not "seemless accusations". Of course, it is unfortunate to cite work from 1941, because such old publication obviously cannot reflect any later research.Ditinili (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to contribute in the article to present "opposite" views. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recommendation, I will.Ditinili (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demographics of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120519001208/http://www.nepszamlalas2001.hu/eng/volumes/18/tables/load1_30_1.html to http://www.nepszamlalas2001.hu/eng/volumes/18/tables/load1_30_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demographics of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demographics of Hungary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Census

ZZARZY223,

still disagree why we should arbitrarily grab just to census data...(KIENGIR (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

KIENGIR, I apologize for the lateness of my response. I was wondering if we could also add the evolution of the ethnic composition through the years reported by the offical censuses. [16] (ZZARZY223 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Ottoman Warfare 1500–1700, Rhoads Murphey, 1999

KIENGIR,

the loss of population prodouced by the Ottoman–Hungarian wars and the ethnic changes are still debated by historians, and calling the claims of Ottoman Warfare 1500–1700 by Rhoads Murphey "unrelated speculation about demographics", while accepting the ones of this source ONE LAND — TWO NATIONS TRANSYLVANIA AND THE THEORY OF DACO-ROMAN-RUMANIAN CONTINUITY as valid is unfair, considering that the second source doesn't mention any numerical estimation at all about the population before and after those wars, giving very vague explanations about the sudden increase of ethnic Romanians in Transylvania ("The cause of this was mainly the immigration of peasants from Muntenia and Moldavia, the Rumanian countries, where they lived in squalor, being exploited bythe Turks as well as by their own lords."- if the population of Transylvania was mainly Hungarian before the Battle of Mohacs, that would mean that a massive emigration hit both Wallachia and Moldova for almost 3 centuries - which is not mentioned by any source, unlike that of the Great Migrations of the Serbs, for example - for Romanians to be just 40% of the population in the 1700s as claimed by the source, and then 60% as reported by official censuses from the 19th century, and then suddenly a great increase in percentage of Hungarians as reported by all the censuses from 1850 to 1910[17]), and other affirmations that are not accepted by all historians regarding the Daco-Roman continuity. Also I would like to know the "problematic parts" of Murphey's work. (ZZARZY223 (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

It's not about acceptance or not, the whole addition is an unrelated, unnecessary speculation, this section is about something else, do not compare it it to anything other. Does not give really anything to the issue, subject about Romanians, etc., hence inclusion is not supported.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Murphey in his work explains how the population of Transylvania didn't have a huge growth during the Ottoman occupation, which was needed if Romanians overtook numerically the Hungarian population (since, as claimed by Murphey, the pre existing population wasn't as much affected, because the losses regarded mainly the military rather than the general population), and the inclusion of that part is related to the claiming, reported in this section, that Romanians overnumbered the ethnic Hungarians after the Battle of Mohacs, in a very short time. Why should be Murphey's claimings considered a speculation, while the claiming that the the "Hungarian ethnic group in Transylvania was in decent majority before Battle of Mohács and only lost its relative majority by the 17th century" is not? (ZZARZY223 (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

What you are speculating here seems OR, you are trying to assert and use two different source's content and contradict them. Here in this section, if both point of view is represented about population statistics, it's enough, this section should not serve of endless speculations of when who was the majority or not. Btw., population may not change just by military casualties, and also other nations's would be also part of this equation regarding the Ottoman wars, this is out of scope. Hence no consensus for this addition, different estimations are already present.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Name

L'grand Anonim,

please try to understand you don't have to demonstrate that the name Oláh what means or whatsoever, please avoid WP:NOR, we summarize what the source says.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Iconian42,

per the discussion ([18]) you may refer, I'll react here better

- I disagree, there is no bias, these are statistical data, within the article's scope

- it is not so clear, since refugees have been also, of course this does not exclude later others left the country for several other reason

- no, the user as well mistaked percentages and dates

- well it seems

- yes

On the further,not all of them were annexations, and disagree adding estimates and detailed other stuff, which is out of scope, the concise mention of the censuses is enough, no consenesus for these changes.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

:- The 10.000.000 non-ethinic Hungarians who united with their motherland due to Hungary's loss of territory is also within the article's scope. As they were citizens of Hungary before 1920, just like the 3,425,000 ethnic Hungarians found themselves separated from their motherland. Citizenship is not limited to ethnicity.

- It is very clear, the term has a specific definition in English, which does not apply to that case. I don't understand what you mean by the rest of your sentnece, refugees have been also whom? who are the later others what what are those several other reasons?

- She did not. The estimations were made in 1940, by the Romanians pre-Vienna and the Hungarians post-Vienna. And the percentage she came up with are correct. Anyway, in my edit, instead of the 1940 Hungarian estimations I used the 1940 Romanian estimations and 1941 Hungarian census, I also took the time to explain why there is such a huge difference between the two. Would you be okay with that?

~~- I'll add the name then. Iconian42 (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Nobody said that citizenship would equal ethnicity, these article is mainly about Hungary and Hungarians, so the scope correlates to that

- There were refugees who fled. There were also other subjects who fled several reason, i.e. persecution, or just decided to leave for several other reasons

- I don't argue on this, it is a fact the user's contribution has been more times corrected. As I said, no because the best concise form to mention the two official censuses, anything further detailed is out of scope.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

~~:- This article is mainly about the Demographics of Hungary, which are not limited to Hungarians.~~

- Fleeing doesn't automatically make you a refugee, you have to flee because your life is in danger, otherwise you relocated. Unless the article contains sources about the Hungarians in question fleeing because they were forced to or their life was in danger, we cannot conclude that they were refugees. Discrimination, while terrible, does not mean your life is in danger.

- It is also a fact that the percentages and dates were correct. So the fault is of those who "corrected" it more times. The best concise form is to present the numbers closest to the year the change happened, which is 1940. Iconian42 (talk) 19:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~:- Are you still against implementing the contribution? Iconian42 (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

- Nobody said it is limited, in fact, the description has more information

- It seems that is in the source

- I really don't know what you are talkung about the diffs prove what I said, fault cannot be on anyone who correct mistakes. The further is your opinion, official censuses have more weight than estimations

- yes(KIENGIR (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

~~:- If it's not limited to Hungarians then the non-Hungarians in Hungary is within the article's scope.~~

~~- Although a refugee is someone who leaves either by force or because he is not safe there (ethnic cleansing or war), if that's what the source says the source won't be questioned.~~

- Which diffs? If you were the one who were correcting them, you weren't correcting mistakes. An official state estimation from 1940 has more weight than an official census from 1930 when the point of interest is the population of 1940. Iconian42 (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the diffs made on that section by the account L'grand Anonim clearly attest the happenings as I described, and yes I corrected mistakes, and I won't reiterate anymore obviously verifiable happenigs. For the rest, this is your opinion, btw, there is no settlement of such point of interest.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC))[reply]

What is the problem with L'grand Anonim's diffs? as I described, he was correct about percentages and dates. While your description on the other hand, is wrong. You don't seem to offer any specific reasoning for the removal of his contribution. Just because it seems "obvious" to you it doesn't mean it's correct, it simply means you have an opinion, which in this particular case is wrong. It's not my opinion, it's simply being on topic. The sub-section of the article are about the demograhpic changes in Hungary caused by the two Vienna Awards in 1938 and 1940. Iconian42 (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]