Talk:Eastern Magyars/Archive 1

Gyeretyán or Jeretyán is not possible to mean "shining" or "glorious", in turkish, it means: "creator".

"When Gyeretyán perceived the growing spread of Catholicism..." - at that time, christianity wasnt a popular religion on those territories, but islam got stronger and stronger there. Jeretyan might have known about the tatars, who were a huge threat for his country, and maybe he wanted to get under the protection of christianity and its armies.

Sources (reliable or not)

I know Bendefy's work is more than dubious, I do not want to open a debate,because I am unable to comment this topic. (I had found a map, and I prepared a quick map about that) I have seen a picture from the that papal bulls.[1] , Maybe it can help for somebody. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can find a lot of books, sources for the topic, but I think those are not academic works. Could anybody tell me academic work about this topic? I suggest we should transform this page for the Szavard Hungarians (this subject has existing academic works) and Bendefy's work might get a section there (like alternative research)Fakirbakir (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found something here[2]Maybe it can help maybe not. (Citation from Full text of "De avitis Magyarorum ac Chunorum, Iasonumque Hungariae accolarum sedibus et initiis")

$. 59. Ceieberrimus etiam Feszlerus sententiam^ qua primores nostros, nullo nixus Testium praew^ . sidio , Mongoles fecit ; quum Historiam Mongolum orientalium, suorumque Dynastarum, ex idiomate Mongolum per Is. los. Schmidt in Germanicum yersum, liberalitateque Caesarea Russorum Impe- rantis Petropoli editum legerit, abnuet; pro sup que in yeritatem studio^ dum vixerit, reuocabit* Erant s. I. Mongoles cumMagyaris vicini, non iidem. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I think it is not a reliable source for WP purposes. Az a bajom, hogy a cikk a szezont a fazonnal keveri. Chorenatzi nem magyarokról, hanem szavirokról írt, akik vagy magyarok voltak, vagy nem. Ghardezi nem a keleten maradt magyarokról, hanem a magyarokról írt, akik jelentős része később ide vándorolt, ahol most élünk. Valóban voltak keleti magyarok és pápai bullák szólnak is róluk, de - amennyire én emlékszem - nem nevezik Kummagyaroknak őket. A kedvenc részem a cikkben, amelyik a mai Ukrajnában talált szobrokat a magyaroknak tulajdonítja, habár azokat a kunok készítették (ezért találhatók az ukrajnai szteppék mellett a Nagyalföldön). Ez a Gyeretyán király külön kedvencem - bizonyos történészek valamiért úgy érzik, hogy a "gy"-s és "ty"-s nevek nagyon sumér-hun-magyar hangzásúk, ezért így magyarosítják az oklevelekben található neveket. Feltételezem, e történészeket gyermekkorukban erős szláv hatás érte. Más: ezek szerint tudsz térképet készíteni. Hálás lennék, ha megmondanád, milyen programot lehet erre használni. Már próbáltam keresni ilyen programokat, de amiket találtam, borzalmasak voltak (vagy én voltam túl hülye a használatukhoz). (Sorry for using the Hungarian language in English WP, but I assume that it can be accepted in this specific case.) Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Üdv, Felejtsd el a mapmaker programokat, túl drágák a jók, az ingyenesek meg nem érnek semmit, ráadásul eszméletlen bonyolultak (a jók is).Próbáltam én is. Használj "képeditor" programot, van ingyenes (gimp.org) és nagyon jó. Kereshetsz mondjuk public domain alap Európa térképet (mondjuk png kiterjesztéssel, a wikicommon-on találsz sokat az enyém is public amire editáltam http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_outline_map.png) és arra szerkessz rá. Lehet, hogy az alaptérkép teljesen publikus, azt szerkesztesz rá amit akarsz, de lehet a szerző annyit kér, hogy tüntesd fel az 'alapodat' mint source-ot. Én is csak most zötykölődöm bele ebbe a dologba, zöldfülű vagyok. Most javítottam Kummagyariat, gimp-es feldolgozásra. Kummagyariáról annyit, laikus vagyok a témában, talán valaki érdemben javítja az oldalt, de a térképét gondoltam megszerkesztem, mivel találtam rá normális forrást. Talán tudtam segíteni, próbáld ki a gimpet, de ha van Photoshop-od akkor gimp tárgytalan. Üdv! Fakirbakir (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And sorry about the Hungarian language usage. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your information. I hope I will be able to use one of those programs. Borsoka (talk) 18:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title alteration

I would propose to alter the Topic name for Theory of Kummagyaria and the really dubious sentences might be deleted. For example the first sentence (homeland of....), because Hungarian historiography does not agree with this statement. We should clear that theme of papal bulls. Which are reliable sources? Where can we find exactly "Kummagyaria" word in the sources? I agree with Borsoka, however this topic might be worthy of note, but what is worthlessness, meanness should be deleted immediately. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC) Or, a very short version of Kummagyaria may get a little space in the Hungarian prehistory topic, like alternative researches. What is your opinion?Fakirbakir (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the article should be deleted, but we should wait for some days before taking any action. I assume that 'Kummagyaria' is the result of the misunderstanding of a Latin text containing 'cum' ('with'). My only concern is that an article should be dedicated to the Caucasian/Asian Magyars, because they existed as it is proven by papal bulls from the early 14th century. On the other hand, based on this article the article on the Caucasian/Asian/'I do not know what kind of' Magyars cannot be written. Borsoka (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to your concerns, I suggested to transform this page for them with a new name of the article ('East Hungarians' or East 'Magyars' would be great) and Kummagyaria -like alternative research- might get a section there (just a section not more than). However Friar Julian page could be also basic for that subject if we abolished this page. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have just checked my previous contributions here and I did not propose an utterly new article (but I support that). 'East Hungarians' would be better choice If we keep this article.Fakirbakir (talk) 11:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]