Talk:Székelys

Gyimesi Csángók

I realize this is an extremely hair-splitting comment, but on the map of ethnic Hungarian repartition in Hargita/Kovászna/Maros, there is a spillover into Bakó megye, specifically the Gyimes pass/upper Tatros valley. In my experience most people in Felsölok, Középlok (Hargita megye) and especially Bükk and Nagy-Gyimes (Bakó megye) consider themselves Csángó rather than Székely (although they gladly admit they are descended from Székely who crossed the pass several hundred years ago). Any advice on an elegant, unobtrusive way to dispel the idea that all the Hungarians on the map are Székely? Hubacelgrand 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A little addendum. The previous name of Judeţul Harghita was Csík megye. Judeţul Covasna originally was Háromszék megye. Judeţul Mureş previoulsy was Maros-Torda megye. Judeţul Bacau was outside the old Hungarian border but had Hungarian name: Bákó megye. Gyimesbükk presently has the name of Ghimeş-Făget (a translated name).

Other opinion: Ioan Aurel Pop, The Ethno-Confessional Structure of Medieval Transylvania and Hungary. Cluj Napoca, 1994 (bulletin of the Center for Transilvanian Studies, vol.III, nr.4, July 1994) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.27.78 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Number of Szeklers

Archivum Ottomanicum, Volume 20, Mouton, 2002, p. 66 - this is not a proper citation (the author is necessary) and also the year of the estimation Tarabostes (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This [1] is an old estimation (at least 22 years old) Tarabostes (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I am going to seek newer sources. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Endre Sik died in 1978, so I doubt that this is a recent estimation Tarabostes (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I realize now that there are more Endre Sik-s [2] Tarabostes (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a book mentioning 665,000 Székelys just in Romania [3] (so it does not count the Székelys in Hungary and other countreis). This book was published in January 2013. I hope that it is recent enough for you. ;-) KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a really dubious source. The book is written by Lucy Mallows, who is a "photojournalist, editor & translator" (it does not sound very reliable - it looks like WP:SPS). When referring to the total Hngarian population, she works with the 2011 Romanian Census#20 October 2011 census data. 665,000 people (obviously not the result of a estimation, the way of obtaining the figure is extremely questionable) are said to be Szekelys, even if conforming to the 2011 Romanian Census only 611,391 Hungarians live in the counties of Harghita, Covasna and Mureş. She could also have counted Aranyos Seat (it is just a supposition), but anyway it is not a source to be considered Tarabostes (talk) 06:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not self-published. It was published by the Bradt Travel Guides Ltd. I don't know where did she get the numbers from, but if you think that this book is not reliable, you can raise the issue on WP:RSN. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I found where the figure comes from. It represents the number of recorded Hungarians living in the counties of Harghita, Covasna and Mureş in 2002 [4] Tarabostes (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote in the edit tags, date is never given for the "Total population" fields of ethnic groups and nations. For example, the total population data of Romanians is also based on 2002 data, still the infobox does not mention this. In order to remain consistent with other similar articles, we should not give date in that field of the infobox, either. On the other hand, the expanded information (population per country) should contain dates (if they are available). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

English name of Siculi

English scientific works used and still use SICULI as in this work: http://www.magtudin.org/Barath_Tibor_The_Early_Hungarians%201.pdf Eurocentral (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

http://www.magtudin.org/Barath_Tibor_The_Early_Hungarians.pdf(see page 137)

That is fine they use the Latin version of their name. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that the above self-published book cannot be used for WP purposes. Borsoka (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Works using SICULI name:

• Tibor E. BARATH, THE EARLY HUNGARIANS, Montreal, 1973

A self-published book. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• A.F. Busching, (tr.P. Murdoch), A New System of Geography: Hungary, Transylvania, Sclavonia, Publisher: General Books LLC ISBN-13: 9781150536472, p. 75-78,

A reprint of a book published in 1762. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• A. Rees, The cyclopædia, vol.36, (Chapter Transylvania), Ulan Press, 2012

A book first published in the 1820s. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• W.H. Jones, L. Kropf, J.Kriza, The folk-tales of the Magyars, Publisher: Cornell University Library (January 6, 2010), ISBN-13: 978-1112602504

A book first published in 1889. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.20.90 (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that you should carefully read what reliable source means for WP purposes. You might have not realized that we are in the year 2013 AD. I would like to ask you to stop wasting your own and other editor's time by citing more than hundred-year-old books in order to prove anything. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If references exist nobody can hide them. Even Borsuqa ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.50.218 (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right. If there is one modern reliable source written in English which proves that "Siculi" is used nobody can hide it. Please, do not refrain from searching modern reliable English sources. Borsoka (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Majority of editors?

I think the truth is not given by the number of editors? But by the facts. Am I right? Hortobagy (talk) 20:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You are right, provided that the facts are verifiable. I am afraid that your edits contradict to this requirement or at least none of them are based on reliable sources. Please read what WP:NOR means. Borsoka (talk) 20:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I may be bias but so as you. But when we're speaking about people then we should talk about their language too. Hortobagy (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read what WP:NOR means. Borsoka (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hortobagy: you should prove your "facts" by reliable sources. If you claim, for example, that there is (was?) such thing as the "Székely language", then there must be serious academic sources which talk about it. In this case, it shouldn't be hard to cite them. I am quite open to any theory, if it is the mainstream approach of the scholars working on that field. But, please, don't waste our time with original research or fringe theories. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Now seriously, can you even imagine that they didn't had any own language? The reply is that YES, they did had it, and guess what : it was called Székely language. Hortobagy (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on what reliable source do you suggest it? Borsoka (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on what reliable source do you suggest it they didn't? Hortobagy (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not me who have to prove anything, because the statement that there is a separate "Székely language" was not made by me. All the same, I can refer to a reliable source (Engel, Pál (2001). The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526. I.B. Tauris Publishers. ISBN 1-86064-061-3) which, on page 115, refers to the Székelys as "the largest Hungarian-speaking ethnic group in Romania". As you see, if a statement is based on reliable source there is no problem in substantiating it. Borsoka (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Magyar Autonomous Region

User Hortobagy has removed several sourced information from the article, mostly about the Magyar Autonomous Region. These includeded:
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
In 1952 the former province of Mureş (with the highest concentration of Székely population) was legally designated as the Magyar Autonomous Region. It was superseded in 1960 by the Mureş Magyar Autonomous Region, itself divided in 1968 into three nonautonomous districts, Harghita, Covasna and Mureş.

Autonomy:

Székely pottery (stove tile)

There were Székely autonomous regions from 1952-1968. First the Magyar Autonomous Region was created in 1952, later (1960) renamed Mureş-Magyar Autonomous Region. Ever since the abolition of the Mureş-Magyar Autonomous Region by the Ceauşescu regime in 1968, some of the Székely have pressed for their autonomy to be restored. Several proposals have been discussed within the Székely Hungarian community and by the Romanian majority. One of the Székely autonomy initiatives is based on the model of the Spanish autonomous community of Catalonia.

A major peaceful demonstration was held in 2006 in favor of autonomy.

• 
  Ethnic map of Harghita, Covasna, and Mureş based on the 1992 data, showing areas with Hungarian (Székely) majority
• 
  Ethnic map of Harghita, Covasna, and Mureş based on the 2002 data, showing areas with Hungarian (Székely) majority
• 
  Ethnic map of Harghita, Covasna, and Mureş based on the 2011 data, showing areas with Hungarian (Székely) majority

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Please, explain us in detail why did you remove most sourced information about the Autonomous Region? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:00, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see he removed a lot of data, and most of it has references. Also I don`t understand why did he removed the images. In my opinion this should be reinserted. Adrian (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Adrian. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

References

Edit warring

I've full protected this article for a week. Any warring by anyone after that will result in an instant block, no waiting for violating 3RR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• I've reverted the article to the wrong version, the version of the last protection by an admin. Any admin is welcome to revert to a different wrong version without asking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources for the denomination "Szeklers" (lead section)

I added below 2 reliable sources,from the many available, to solve the citation needed tag added a few days ago. It is a totally uncontroversial edit. The main political structure of the Szeklers is called Szekler National Council (the name is used also on their official site and the redirect from Szeklers exists since 2003)

• Jean W Sedlar, East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500, p. 406
• James Minahan, Encyclopedia of the stateless nations, p. 1812

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raysdiet (talk • contribs) 07:03, 20 May 2013

Hi Raysdiet, you forgot to sign your comment. I agree with you that "Szekler National Council" is their offical name, since they even use this form on their website. The article can be updated with this name of their council after the protection is expired. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Given the history of conflict on this article, give it a few days and if no-one objects, notify me on my talk and I'll make the change. --RA (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am talking about the sources needed in line 2, I don't want to add anything about the council, I was just pointing out that the organization uses the denomination "Szeklers" Raysdiet (talk) 21:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Raysdiet, if you are talking about this [5] edit of yours, then this is also fine with me. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am talking about that edit, with the only mention that the source must be be formatted. Raysdiet (talk) 05:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Turkish origin of Siculi

From different sources appears that Siculi were speaking a Turkish language. Even Byzantine sources called Magyars and Siculi as Turks. Siculi are of Turkish-Avar origin. No connections with huns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.20.90 (talk) 06:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Is is simple as that, if you have a reliable source we can discuss it how it can be introduced in the article. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Those "different sources" are absolute rubbish, and typical Turk nationalism - like the claim that Sumerian is a Turkic language - just so much crap. 74.37.206.38 (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Magyarization

I don't see any relevance of mentioning Magyarization in the lead of *this* article, unless there are direct sources which connect the Székely people with Magyarization. Similarly, I do not see too much reference to Romanianization in the lead of the article about the Romanians... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above remark. There is no direct connection between the Székely people and Magyarization in the late 19th century. Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Sherrill Stroschein's view

WP:NPOV: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic

Question for User:Fakirbakir and User:Koertefa: In Sherrill Stroschein's view, they Szeklers identify themselves as Hungarians for political purposes. Which are the other significant views that are ignored by using this phrasing? 79.117.188.208 (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

So, Szekelys have been identifying themselves as Hungarians for one thousand years because of "political purposes"? What a heck? Sorry, but it is simply rubbish. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but saying that "Szekelys have been identifying themselves as Hungarians for one thousand years" without providing any sources is original research.

I've found an article title that could be relevant: PCM and UDMR ask Szeklers and Csangos to declare themselves as Hungarians at the census ([6]) 79.117.188.208 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• "The Székely nobility has always been a group among the Hungarians who have a strong awareness of their Hungarian identity."[7] p. 29
• "For this reason, Hungarians tend to idealise the Székely and consider them the 'real' Hungarians."[8] p. 168
• "They are a sort of "proto-Hungarian" which is one of the reason why Hungarians consider Transylvania to be the cradle of their civilization"[9] p. 234

There is a huge difference between being a Hungarian sub-group with peculiar identity and being an entirely different non-Hungarian ethnic group. You misinterpret Szekler identity. Of course UDMR asked Szeklers to be Hungarian because there were two options in the census (Szekler and Hungarian). Romanian government maliciously wanted (wants) to divide Hungarian minority in Romania irrespective of the opinion of scholars. Fakirbakir (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Strange affirmation

I've removed the statement: "The Romanian government does not recognize the existence of a Székely Land." because I don't understand its meaning. How could Romania recognize a non-existing political entitiy? It is not like Kosovo or Transnistria, which are self-proclaimed entities 79.117.188.208 (talk) 14:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Székelys of Bukovina

Merge Székelys of Bukovina into Székelys? As per scope and shortness of both articles. --Zoupan 15:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to preserve a separate article for the Székelys of Bukovina. Both articles could be expanded in the future. Should we merge the articles "Slovaks in Serbia" into "Slovaks" or "Serbs in Hungary" into "Serbs"? 16:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Borsoka (talk)

I fail to see how Székelys—Székelys of Bukovina and Serbs—Serbs in Hungary are relatable; the Székelys is a Hungarian ethnographic group of Hungary and Romania, while Serbs in Hungary is a community of Serbs (an ethnic-national minority). As per scope, Székelys of Bukovina would be a section at Székelys.--Zoupan 16:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The Székelys of Bukovina was a group of Székelys who settled in Bukovina and formed an ethnic-national minority there. Borsoka (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

As per WP:SCOPE, as there already are articles on Hungarians in Romania, Hungarians in Ukraine and Székelys, I suggested that instead of the further split of Székelys into "of Transylvania" and "of Bukovina" to have one Székelys article (reasons for splitting are size and content relevance).--Zoupan 04:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I still propose that the present article "Székelys of Bukovina" should be preserved. Ukraine and Romania did not exist when a Székely groups settled in Bukovina in the Habsburg Empire at the end of the 18th century. This group has a distinctive history: they were moved to Bukovina from the Székely Land, from Bukovina to Vajdaság (now in Serbia) and finally they moved to Hungary. Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a merge is a good idea in this case. Geographically speaking, Bukovinan Szekelys still live in Vojvodina and Tolna and Baranya counties. The history of Bukovinan Szeklers separated from Szeklers' history hundreds years ago. IMHO. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Ethnically Avar

Quotation from article: "Székelys were part of the Avar confederation during the so-called Dark Ages, but this does not mean that they were ethnically Avar." Avars were not a homogeneous people, just like any other steppe peoples. There was a leading tribe, after which all the others of their tribes got their names. Therefore it is obvious that there is no such thing like "ethnically Avar". Other tribes as well were not ethnically Avars within the Avar confederation. 178.48.177.1 (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Avars have been identified as Turkic people. Their confederation is a political construct, not an ethnicity.50.111.19.34 (talk) 03:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Székelys. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060528043717/http://www.gandul.info/2006-05-27/politic/romaniei_ii_este_aplicabil to http://www.gandul.info/2006-05-27/politic/romaniei_ii_este_aplicabil
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228020954/http://www.sznt.ro/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84&Itemid=21&lang=en to http://www.sznt.ro/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84&Itemid=21&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080402050534/http://lgi.osi.hu/documents.php?id=1098 to http://lgi.osi.hu/documents.php?id=1098

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) 04:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Flag of Szeklers

This one appeared only very late after 1990 http://www.covasna.info.ro/szekely-zaszlo-a-az-onazonossag-es-az-autonomiaharc-jelkepe/ Skyhighway (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The spelling "Sekhey"

Is there a reference for this? I've never seen this spelling, nor does Google seem aware of it. -- Elphion (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Warring mentality

@Magysze: there are ongoing debates on the "Szekely language" in multiple Talk pages (here, here and here). Please do not expand them to new articles. Please also remember that the possible Turkic origin of the Székelys is already mentioned in the article, so no need to repeat it and it cannot be presented as a fact as per WP:NPOV. Please also remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

https://www.romanianhistoryandculture.com/transylvanianszekely.htm read it, it will help you Magysze (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Read reliable sources. They will help you to understand that the Székelys' origin is unclear. Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I just gave you the sources. A lot of them, good luck reading them. https://www.romanianhistoryandculture.com/transylvanianszekely.htm Inside the text you can find them. Magysze (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Controversy on Szekely language

New article to be expanded, your help is needed. Controversy on Szekely language Magysze (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Trivial but interesting

US comedian Louis CK's abbreviation-style last name is taken from Székelys I believe. "CK" is the closest to correct pronunciation in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.144.133 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Iranian origin of the Szeklers

Good afternoon. I read a lot of theories and genetic studies on the internet. For example, a genetic study in the 1990s showed that the seven closest peoples to the Szeklers are the Hungarians and the Iranians (Scythians, Persians, Sarmatians). There is a theory to support this. CsifoZsombor (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi {u{|CsifoZsombor}}, please stop your edits in the article. The past of the Székelys is uncertain, and they might have constituted an unique ethnic group in the past or have descended from one like that. But there's academic consensus saying that the Székelys are a Hungarian subgroup as of 2021. Several other users tried to do the same in the past, they all failed and are now blocked. So reconsider your edits. Super Ψ Dro 20:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

{u{|Super}} I agree, but the academy did not take into account that the Szeklers have their own culture, dialect, and their own national consciousness. A genetic scientist who worked at the MTA conducted tests on them and showed that there were many externalities. I think the academy was wrong in this case. CsifoZsombor (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC) --CsifoZsombor (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2021 (UTC)CsifoZsobmor

Please take a look at WP:RS and WP:V. Your opinion regarding what academic consensus says doesn't matter in Wikipedia, unless you are a scholar yourself who has published a study about it. You need sources saying Székelys are different from Hungarians and not a subgroup of them. Without them, you cannot oppose what any source says in Wikipedia. This applies for every single user in Wikipedia as well, by the way. Super Ψ Dro 09:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Reason. If you wish, I will send you the genetic results that Endre Czeiczel's genetic tests of the Hungarian MTA. --CsifoZsombor (talk) CsifoZsombor

^ user is now blocked from editing

This is a ethnic group.

I do not know why the Szeklers are called a"subgroup" They have a separate culture, flag, dialect, folklore, yet they call them subgroup. This is a separate ethnic group, they are placed in Romania as separate people. The MTA may have written something, but I'm not sure it's true. Organizations in Szeklerland also treat it as a separate people.--CsifoZsombor (talk)CsifoZsombor

Because they are a subgroup of the Hungarian people with their own culture, flag, Hungarian dialect and folklore. Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

How can you be a "subgroup" of the Hungarian people if there is a large genetically large difference between the two ethnic groups? Endre Czeizel proved this, he is one of the best Hungarian geneticists.

https://m.nyest.hu/media/a-szekely-minta-genetikai-tavolsaga-a-tobbi-etnikai-csoporttol-es-mas-neessegektol.jpg?large

Your only source is literally a single image. Not even a full citation of an academic article. Super Ψ Dro 13:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

That claim is rubbish. The overwhelming majority of scholarly opinion is exactly as Borsoka has stated.50.111.19.34 (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The "overwhelming scholarly opinion" is subject to change, if ongoing controversies surrounding the upcoming census are any indication. Hungarian ultranationalist politicians, most notably Orban and his party have been using Szeklers as a way to expand their influence in Romania in a multitude of ways. If it were to turn out that the Szeklers don't consider themselves to be Hungarian, outside of the FIDES-aligned intelligentsia, then the FIDES would lose all rights granted to them by the treaty between the two countries to support them financially, as they can only support Hungarians living in Romania, not any other ethnic group. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Szekelys are a Hungarian regional subgroup not a different ethnic group... and "Szekely" is only the name of this Hungarian group, that is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod (talk • contribs) 12:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

As I stated before, this subject is a matter of controversy right now, due to the upcoming romanian census, where the szeklers are listed as a "subgroup" of Hungarians, the same way Aromanians are listed as a subgroup of Romanians - yet the Aromanians consider themselves to be a separate ethnicity. If Szeklers were a "regional subgroup", the same census would list vranceans, moldovans and maramuresians under romanian subgroups, instead of what are very clearly separate ethnicities. During the last census, less than 2000 people identified as szeklers and the remaining hungarian speaking transilvanians simply identified as hungarian, but if the statements recently made by prominent public figures, both hungarians and self-identified szeklers are any indication, this is something that's about the change.

Furthermore, due to the treaty between Romania and Hungary, Hungary is allowed to invest in hungarian minorities living in Romania, while Romania is allowed to invest in romanian minorities living in Hungary. The notion that the szeklers are indeed hungarian, is the whole basis for the hungarian government handing out citizenship and voting rights and funding hungarian language education in Romania. If Szeklers identify as a separate ethnicity, Hungary will lose all legal grounds to associate with them. Organizations that are funded by the current hungarian government are fully aware of this, and of the fact that if the "overwhelming scholarly opinion" changes, they will face immediate bankruptcy. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an old Romanian trick to list separate the Hungarians and the Székelys, then the nationalist Romanians can happily say "no any Székelys" in Transylvania :) but Székelys are not stupid, that is why almost all Székelys identify themself as Hungarian, to keep their rights instead of split them, and you know well the Romanians do not like the Hungarians and they did everything against them in the past 100 years what they could do. Anyway they are still a regional Hungarian subgroup not a different ethnicity (there are also many Hungarian subgroup still in the Carpathian Basin, not only the Székelys, but all of them are Hungarians, we can name the people of Bucharest as a separate name, but still they are Romanians). — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod (talk • contribs) 16:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Your tone is not neutral and implies heavy investment in the topic. I should probably inform you that if you are affiliated with any advocacy groups directly involved in this matter, that results in a WP:COI. Your claims about "old Romanian tricks" and Romanians conspiring against Hungarians for 100 years are exceptional claims that require citations from high quality secondary sources - otherwise they can be dismissed as nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

You're also basically admitting that the debate around whether or not Szeklers are a separate ethnicity is politically charged. Let's assume Romanian nationalists do intend either make it look like Szeklers are a separate ethnicity from Hungarians. Well, the Hungarian government and Szekler advocacy groups funded by the Hungarian government also have a political interest in claiming that Szeklers are NOT a separate ethnicity, because if they were, the former has no legal basis for funding the latter.

The debate on wether or not the Szeklers are a separate ethnicity does in fact exist. It's okay if you're adamant in supporting one side of the debate, but you don't get to make the call what on what all Szeklers believe. You will need reliable secondary sources for that. Consider taking some time reading through Wikipedia's policies to better understand what I'm talking about. Also, please sign your comments, and try to stick to the thread's format. 46.97.170.40 (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Your fringey claims remain unsubstantiated by historians. If/when that changes, come back with Reliable Sources. And genetics NEVER equates to ethnicity - ethnicity/nationality is determined by language and culture. 74.37.206.38 (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Famous Szeklers.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Plural?

Why is there an s on this? Szekely is a group, not a barrel of nails. Athanasius V (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 July 2022

There are many vandalism by Romanian anonym IPs. Szekelys are a Hungarian subroup in Transylvania. Transylvania was Hungarian land 1000 years long, since 1920 part of Romania. Thus, many Romanians did not like local Hungarians in Transylvania. Please set the page to be protected to avoid future vandalism. Some examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Székelys&diff=1099895094&oldid=1096871680

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Székelys&diff=1092462063&oldid=1092461817

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Székelys&diff=864925568&oldid=864925450

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Székelys&diff=996329238&oldid=989851095

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Székelys&diff=864925450&oldid=864925007

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Székelys&diff=1092461817&oldid=1089723935

Another Szekely related site:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Székely_Land&diff=1092510786&oldid=1092480254

Explanation of the vandalism from an administrator from the Romanian wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OrionNimrod&diff=1092885436&oldid=1092885021 OrionNimrod (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Origins Gepids Paragraph

I deleted a long paragraph from the "Origins" section, which paraphrases a scholar working in the 1920s who connected the Szekely to a group called the Gepids. The paragraph didn't cite sources. It might be worth recovering the paragraph, re-writing it with a more neutral tone, and finding sources for the material, but at the moment the paragraph doesn't seem relevant or valuable enough to understanding the topic as it stands. Transfigurationblues (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)